About This Blog

Entries beginning with a number are a continuation of the old Judging Crimes blog, which was long focused on the two meanings of its name: the way crimes are judged in America, and the, uh... occasional defalcations and derelictions of the berobed.

Judging Crimes took a long hiatus for some of the reasons explained here.

Entries beginning with Book 'em! are book reviews and commentaries. No attention is paid to the imperatives of book marketing. As Calvin Trillin once pointed out, the average shelf life of a book in a bookstore falls somewhere between milk and yogurt, but in these days of long-tail online marketing that matters less to everyone, and I don't see why it should matter at all to reviewers. Most posts will be about books that have been around long past the time when yogurt would have solidified.

Other entries will be... well, I'm curious to find out what the others will be.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

Test Drive the Book!
« 258. Lokution | Main | 256. The conservatism of American law schools »

257. Southern strategy

One of the themes of this blog is that we should evaluate our legal system by looking at what it does rather than examining the words its judges use or their protestations of good intentions.  That approach can be applied more broadly, too. 

Take Richard Nixon's War on Drugs.  If one were to reason from effects backwards to intent, one would have to conclude that Nixon was not motivated to reduce the consumption of illegal drugs.  We're wrapping up the fourth decade of "war" and while there's some evidence that fewer people are passing around joints today than when the Grateful Dead was doing 10-minute versions of "Peggy-O," more are using methamphetamineprescription painkillers, crack cocaine and ecstasy.

Here's Brian Bennett's huge selection of government data presented graphically - lots of flat lines.  And here's a chart suggesting marijuana is as readily available to teenagers today as in 1975.  If the intent of the "War on Drugs" is measured by effects, and its effects don't include decreasing drug use, or even limiting drug availability, we can only conclude its intent was/is something else. 

Reasoning back from effect to intent, the intent of the "War on Drugs" must have been to:

    1. Destroy the economies and destabilize the polities of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. 
    2. Simultaneously encourage police corruption.
    3. Vastly increase the number of children growing up without their fathers, and teach them that it's normal to have family members in jail.
    4. Vastly increase the number of people under "correctional control" - in jail or prison, on probation or parole.  In 1980, which was already nine years into the "War," 1,842,100 Americans were under correctional  control.  In 2005 the number was 7,056,000.  That's an increase of about 383%.  Over the same period, the national population increased by 23%.  (Here's the 1980 population figure, here's 2005.)

I'm quite capable of thinking ill of Nixon, but even I can't really believe he intended effects 1, 3 and 4.  (He might not have cared, but he probably didn't intend them.)  I can, however, easily believe he intended # 5, not for its own sake but - again reasoning backwards from effect to intent - because it represented the disenfranchisement of so many people who were highly unlikely to vote Republican.  The high percentage of Black prisoners can be seen as just one aspect of the Republican Party's extremely successful Southern Strategy.

Reader Comments (1)

freelance writer
July 20, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNolanMaria35

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.