The Cancer of American Incarceration

There is no starker example of the contradictory nature of the USA’s exceptionalism than our prison system.  We have 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners.  Our normalized (adjusted for population size) incarceration rate is many times the rate of any other developed nation and is in the same category as such ‘exceptional’ nations as Russia and Iran.  Indeed, we can boast of an even higher level than those countries!

Here is a map of the world prison population depicted in colors:

This prison mania accelerated monstrously from 1980 to 2000 and is now very slowly declining.  Here are three graphs depicting the growth of our correctional world.  The first one shows the total numbers of people in various states of correction, the second shows prison population, and the third shows the growth of the % of the population incarcerated over time.

There is currently a bi-partisan effort underway to address the extreme nature of our prison industry, but the ramifications of this 30 year orgy of incarceration will be with us for a long time.

Not only do we incarcerate more people than any other nation, we also do the poorest job of rehabilitating them.  Our system’s mantra is punishment, not rehabilitation, and we have rates of recidivism that reflect that misguided policy.  Over 77% of prisoners released in 2005 were arrested again by 2010.  Over 43% are arrested within the first year.  Compare this to European countries, where the focus is on rehabilitation and the recidivism rate is well below 50%. 

People who have a criminal record have a very difficult time re-entering society.  Job opportunities are scarce (who wants a ‘criminal’ as a new employee?), their primary group of friends and acquaintances is very likely to consist of ex-cons who may tempt them to return to criminal activities, their families may have distanced themselves during their incarceration, they cannot vote or hold many types of jobs, and they are much more susceptible to depression, suicide, drug or alcohol abuse and many other ills.

To a great extent society gives up on people who go to prison.  And the consequential costs to society are staggering.  The largest visible cost is the incarceration itself and the justice system that surrounds it.  More police, more courts, more judicial officials, more jails, more prisons, more probation officers – the list goes on and on.  And then there are the unseen costs – the loss of these people as contributing members of society, the impact of their imprisonment on their families, and particularly their children, the material and psychological impact of their criminality on our social fabric.

Underlying all of these sad facts is our nation’s unresolved problem of race.  Black men comprise 37% of the prison population in the U.S. though they are only 16% of the overall population.  Blacks are given significantly longer prison sentences than whites for the same crimes.  There can be no denying that these facts are a dismal legacy of slavery and the unfinished reconstruction of our society after freedom was granted. 

There are two sides to the racial crime coin.  One is that blacks are undoubtedly profiled and targeted for investigation much more aggressively than whites, especially in drug-related crimes.  The other side is that blacks do commit more violent crimes than whites, with the great majority being black on black crime.  However, black crime is a huge fear factor for white people, and much of our over-zealous incarceration over the last 30 years is due to a kind of hysteria that afflicted white people and influenced lawmakers to act aggressively.

What is clear is that ever-increasing incarceration as punishment is not the long term answer to crime.  Excellent examples of rehabilitation techniques do exist in the world, especially in Nordic countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark.  Our current prison system is a frighteningly dangerous, dysfunctional hell that is more likely to create career criminals than do any rehabilitation at all.  If we are not willing to reform our system and dedicate the necessary resources to oppose this trend of vengeance over forgiveness, then we will be doomed to a vicious cycle of increasing crime and alienation in our society.

Idolize Ideas not People

Human history is a complex web of ideas, people and progress on many different fronts.  If progress can be understood as a type of change that generally moves human society in a positive direction, then one can chart progress in many different areas: technology (including all the sciences and mathematics), language, commerce, ethics, political systems and so on.  Some areas of change are not necessarily positive areas of advancement.  For example, I would describe religion and military change as often retarding the advance of civilization, though certainly they have at times had effects that can be argued as salutary.

Each of these areas has its heroes at different phases of progress that our civilization has acknowledged and placed on pedestals.  Our world is littered with monuments and statues of past heroes, and our history books extol the virtues of these titans with unabashed adoration.  More recently, a whole cottage industry has developed that produces lengthy biographical tomes that catalog the minutest details of the lives of various well-known historical figures.

The Great Man Theory, which became popular in the 19th century, posited that history was defined by the acts of 'great men' and that most of what has been accomplished in this world is due to heroic efforts by a few great men, which then allowed the masses to follow their genius and build upon it.

But as we have investigated the lives of our storied figures, we have routinely discovered that all of them have feet of clay, and that they are, unsurprisingly, all too human.  How often have we spent decades extolling the many virtues of some lionized hero only to be bitterly disappointed as a multitude of sins or ethical lapses come to light?  Moreover, if we look closely at their contributions, we see that they stand on the shoulders of countless unsung others who did as much, if not more, to bring about the advances for which they are heralded. 

For human progress is very rarely a step function or a quantum leap.  On the contrary, it is a slow, dogged march with many a misstep and a long litany of mini-triumphs before a major breakthrough or accomplishment can be cited.

It is humankind itself, in all its striving and hopefulness that relentlessly pushes our civilization forward and deserves our praise.  It is the efforts of the many, not the genius of a few, that allow us to refine our world and polish its rough edges.  It is a thousand experiments in a dozen laboratories, and the ensuing exchange of ideas and techniques, that brings the ‘eureka’ moment.  It is the intellectual heritage of hundreds of writers, philosophers and poets that allows a few well-positioned men to write a Declaration of Independence or a Bill of Rights.

It may be intriguing, and even instructive, to study the lives of men or women who have been present at pivotal times in our history.  It is a very human trait to be curious about other people’s lives and how they end up playing important roles.  To the extent that this veneration can inspire others to contribute to society it may even be somewhat warranted. 

But the hagiography of other human beings is a slippery slope that veers toward a worship of fame and fortune rather than a more appropriate love of the ideas that undergird their accomplishments.  And in my view the worship of fame and fortune is one of the great ills of our society.

The worship of truth and enduring principles is far more helpful than the idolization of a mythologized human actor who plays a role in the drama of unveiling that truth.  It is the pursuit and embrace of ideas and ideals that will draw us upward - let us love them instead!

The Fed and the Naivete of Economic 'Control'

I taught IB mathematics at Atlanta International School for three years and have had more than my share of math courses in my life.  The classic question from frustrated or intimidated students was:  “When will I ever use this stuff!”

It is true that most people will rarely be tasked to solve algebraic equations or identify minimums or calculate derivatives in their work life.  But I would argue that an understanding of math and physics gives one an insight into the way that ‘systems’ behave that is invaluable in understanding many aspects of life.  And not just physical systems like planets, airplanes and human bodies, but also systems such as social systems, economics, political systems and general human behavior.

I did a masters degree focused on system dynamics and control theory, which I found to be a fascinating insight into almost everything!  The basic concept is that systems can be modelled mathematically and then controlled by either open loop or closed loop control scenarios.  Open loop means that the control is done with no feedback from the system itself and closed loop means that the feedback is used to alter the control input.

A simple example of a closed loop control system is an elevator.  The control input is the control signal to the motor that raises or lowers the elevator.  The position of the elevator is the measured quantity that is used as feedback to determine whether to increase or decrease the motor speed.  As the elevator gets closer to its desired position (floor), the motor speed decreases and is eventually stopped.

An elevator is a single input, single output system – very simple.  An airplane is an example of a much more complex system.  There are multiple control inputs – throttle, flap positions, rudder position, etc. – and there are multiple measured quantities that must be used as feedback to control the airplane – air speed, pitch, roll, yaw, elevation, etc.   This is a multi-input, multi-output system. 

Controlling an airplane is very complex, but fortunately the dynamic behavior of airplanes can be modelled quite successfully, and control algorithms can be mathematically derived.  Airplanes can be operated completely by computerized automatic pilots.

There are two critical questions for every system: (1) is the system ‘observable’ – i.e. are the available measurements sufficient to understand how the system is behaving?  And (2) is the system ‘controllable’ – i.e. are the control inputs sufficient to actually control the system?  To determine the answer to these questions one must have an excellent model of the system and its control inputs and measurements.  The more complex the system, the more likely it is that multiple measurements and control inputs will be necessary to 'observe' and 'control' the system.

 

Our economy is about as complex a system as one can imagine.  Attempts have been made to model it, but there are so many non-deterministic aspects of economic behavior (consumer attitude/action, political impact, weather, war, etc.) that models are at best a way to convey concepts and trends rather than accurate portrayals of behavior.  The economy is clearly a multi-input, multi-output system.  The lack of a comprehensive and accurate model makes it very challenging to derive any true control algorithm.

It is not clear whether the measurements we have of our economy are sufficient to make it ‘observable’ from a control point of view.   Similarly, it is also clear that multiple control inputs would be necessary to control such a complex system, if indeed it is ‘controllable’.

The primary ‘control’ input for our economy is the interest rate that the Federal Reserve (the Fed) establishes.  In times of stability and small perturbations of the economy, the use of this control input can seem to be effective in controlling many aspects of the economy.  But it is absurd to believe that this single control input can truly ‘control’ the economy in any real sense.  I suspect that most serious economists know this, as quantitative economics is a fairly well-developed discipline.

When the economy goes into recession, attempts are made to use other controls to bring it back to a healthier state.  Examples are deficit spending such as infrastructure investments, unemployment aid, quantitative easing and, in some cases, austerity measures.  There is great debate over whether these measures should be initiated and whether they are effective.  The simple truth is that there is really no way to know without a comprehensive model of the economy, which is unlikely to ever be derived.

When the economy has serious disruptions, the Fed is more or less helpless in guiding it to a more stable situation.  In these scenarios, the lack of ‘controllability’ of the economy is apparent and the world can only take shots in the dark to attempt to fix the problems.  It is naïve to believe otherwise, though many will claim to have the answer!  Fortunately, the economy is generally self-correcting, though not without a lot of pain and misery in the interim.