Changing Free Will from a Harmful Illusion to a Life-Affirming Fact

Underlying many of the social systems and moral perspectives that govern our society is the concept of free will.  Whether stated as the ability to know right from wrong or whether it’s the belief that anyone can pick themselves up by their bootstraps, our system of laws, both criminal and civil, and government’s approach to helping those in need is founded on the concept of free will.

But do we really have free will?  Does each person really have this broad range of options from which he or she can choose?

The answer, in short, is “no.”  We are, each of us, a product of our upbringing, in all its many aspects ... from our experience in the womb, to the nurturing we receive in our early formative years, to everything we experience and learn at the hands of our family, peers, and the larger culture.  How all those different factors impact each person results in the multifaceted nature of humanity ... literally, no two people are the same, not even twins, and certainly not siblings.

While this statement should not be controversial, the further implications of it will likely be viewed as highly so.  The environment of our upbringing programs us (our minds are like extremely complex computers) to act the way we act. This is not to say that we are like robots.  Because we have minds and the ability to think, each of us has a range of actions that we can take.  But it is a much smaller range than assumed by the concept of free will.

Whether someone has ambition or has none, becomes a criminal or not, is kind or ruthless, and the list could go on and on ... regarding almost every area of human activity, most of the “decisions” we make are not really decisions, because decision implies a real choice.  Instead, these “decisions” have been made for us by the way we have been programmed by the environment of our upbringing.

Let’s take the example of two individuals growing up poor in the ghetto in similar circumstances and with a similar lack of educational achievement.  One takes the path of crime to provide money for the basics of life; the other rejects that route and takes a low-paying job.  The conventional view would be that the first individual makes a conscious decision to do what he knows to be wrong, while the second one makes a choice not to do what he knows to be wrong.  

But that is false.  The first individual, by virtue of his upbringing, does not think crime is wrong; he knows it’s illegal, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong as far as he is concerned.  The environment of his upbringing programmed him to disregard the larger society’s morality and to believe he had no other options for making it.  The second individual, on the other hand, had something in his upbringing ... possibly a parent or church ... that taught him that crime is wrong.  He could no sooner do that than chop off his hand.

Then there is the well known example of the child or wife abuser.  As research has clearly shown, these individuals do not choose to abuse their children or their wives.  They themselves were typically abused as children and their minds equate abuse with love because as children that’s how they coped with being abused by a parent.  And so, they are programmed by their past to abuse their loved ones.  They have no choice, absent intervention and therapy.

It is the mind’s programming that causes those who are abused to become abusers themselves.  As hard as it is for us to understand and accept that fact, as incomprehensible as it may seem, it is nevertheless a fact.

The implications of this analysis is significant.  There is no such thing as a bad person; that is to say, no one comes out of the womb a bad person, no one is an inherently bad person.  But people do come to do bad things because of what they’ve been taught by the environment of their upbringing.  

While that should and can have no impact on the laws of what is socially allowable behavior.  And those who violate those laws must take responsibility for their behavior, even if they in reality had little or no choice ... that is necessary for the stability of society ... how we treat such individuals is another matter.

Based on this analysis, how we deal with those who violate the law needs to change drastically from current and past practices.  For example, the goal of the criminal justice system is to increase public safety.  We know all too well from experience though that fear of incarceration or even death does not act as a deterrent and change people’s behavior.  Such is the power of their programmed minds.

Thus, while the criminal justice system would still determine guilt or innocence, the driving goal of the sentencing process would be rehabilitation not punishment.  Not just sentencing, but the whole prison culture would be totally transformed because in order to rehabilitate, a person’s thought process must be reprogrammed.  This is a complex process, but first and foremost it involves building someone’s feeling of self-worth and his sense of oneness, his interconnectedness with all people.  Only then will a person stop treating others badly, whether family, peers, or strangers.  (See my post, “Prisons as Monastery not Dungeon,” 11/20/14.)

The latter lesson will be very controversial for most readers because our whole system of social interaction, from the micro to the group to the nation is based on an us v them analysis, which in turn is based on our insecurity.  Virtually every conflict that man has been involved in has been a result of this insecurity and his us v them perspective.  Even the three great western religions have an us v them perspective at their core.  But this human weakness must be eradicated wherever it appears if we are ever to achieve peace at any level.

This analysis of the programming that robs us of free will also should impact the function of our public schools.  It is not enough to teach people job-related skills (yes, I know that many schools do a poor job of even that).  Schools must teach people what they are all too often not taught at home or by the media ... to be ethical human beings, regardless of the circumstance.  (See my post, “Schools as Educators of Citizens,” 3/10/14,)  Only then will children see beyond the immediacy of their environment and have a real chance to exercise free will

The goal of these changes I’m suggesting is to provide a real opportunity for people to exercise free will, to free themselves from the straight-jacket of their mind’s programming.

I stated in the beginning that for the most part, our systems are based on the invalid assumption that we have free will.  But in one critical arena, the injustice suffered by many results from the opposite assumption ... that they have no free will.  Schools, especially inner-city schools, mostly accept as given that children from bad backgrounds are hopeless, s lost cause, and nothing but trouble.  And that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy,

Let’s take two people of equal talent and intelligence,  One is born in an upper middle-class family with all the attendant privileges and supportive parents. One is born into a drug-addicted family living in poverty on the fringes of society.  There is no difference in the two children regarding their genetic-based talents and intelligence.  

In the one case the talents and intelligence are recognized and nurtured, sometimes obsessively, the talent and intelligence blossoms and the person goes on to become a productive person.  But in the other case, the talents and intelligence are neither recognized nor nurtured ... the seeds that are within are not watered ... and so that talent and intelligence atrophies and the person goes on to the life that is more or less typical for people raised in those surroundings.  Free will was not a factor in either case.

This is a huge waste of human potential and a crime against humanity.  Children indeed do not have free will, but they are young and their minds are malleable enough that they can more easily be taught to feel self-worth than adults.  Thus, all schools must instead function with the goal of making the most of each child’s potential and from the perspective that a child’s background and SES group does not predetermine that potential.  Just as our criminal justice system ideally follows the maxim “innocent until proven guilty,” our schools should follow the maxim, “talented and intelligent until proven otherwise.”

Our system of justice and social engineering based on the assumption of free will, or in the case of many inner-city schools, the lack of free will, has done an injustice to untold millions of people to the detriment not just of their lives but of the health and stability of our society.  We assume that people have free will when convenient for us, when in fact they do not; but at the same time believe that people have no free will, when that is what’s convenient.

What we must do is reform our systems so that all people develop a sense of self-worth, of opportunity, and thus in fact can exercise free will.  Only with such reforms will we ever see the full implementation of the promise of the Declaration of Independence ... that all men are created equal, have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

The Mendaciousness of the Responsibility Game

We are brought up in this society to think that we have control over our lives.  That if we do this or do that, if we work hard enough, if we go to college, etc., that the desired results will materialize for us.  And if things don’t work out, it is our fault.  In its crudest form, this has been expressed in recent years by Republicans in Congress who have stated bluntly that if you are poor, if you haven’t made it up the financial ladder, it’s your fault; you’re lazy.

This perspective on life is totally an illusion, a lie.  While we do have control over whether we work hard, whether we study hard, how we treat other people, whether we get married, etc., we have absolutely no control over whether those actions bear the desired fruits, which for most people are security, success, money, and as a result ... so we are taught ... happiness.

In truth, all we have control over is the way we relate to ourselves and to others, to the world around us.  Whether our actions bring about the desired result lies in the control of others  or is just a matter of good fortune, happenstance.  

Everyone will understand when I speak of the control of others.  But what about happenstance.  In common parlance, the phrase, “being in the right place at the right time,” is an example of that.  So many of the breaks that people receive in life, while often in part the result of careful planning, are really a result of everything falling into place, which is a function of happenstance.  

For example, let’s say you set up a meeting with several people and you learned of a great job opportunity and made a great contact.  Had the meeting taken place two days later, the discussion could have produced nothing, either because one person didn’t show or because an opportunity that was present on one day wasn’t there anymore two days later.  This is part of the vicissitudes of life.

Unfortunately, people who have “made it” tend not to be aware of how they have been blessed by happenstance.  Their ego tells them that it was all because of their hard work; luck or fortune had nothing to do with it.  And so they lack any compassion for those who haven’t made it, whether they are poor or struggling middle class or a lower level executive who isn’t going anywhere.  They’re not aware of the saying, “They’re but for good fortune (or the grace of God) go I.”  A preeminent example of this, perhaps, is Justice Clarence Thomas.

And so those who haven’t made it are made to feel by our culture that they are at fault.  They haven’t tried hard enough.  This internalized self-blame is very demoralizing.  People may often blame a particular individual for some opportunity not materializing or a venture failing, but they rarely get the larger point that the whole concept of control is an illusion.

Most of the frustration and pain we experience from trying and not succeeding comes from this illusion of control.  The lesson we as individuals need to take from being aware of the illusion of control is to let the idea of control go, to accept that all one can do is the best one can, but ultimately the result depends on many factors outside your control.  To have any peace, one must have the attitude, “If it works, great.  If it doesn’t work, that’s OK too.”

For those who are in government, the lesson is to understand that what our society deems “failure” is most often not a matter of someone not having tried.  It’s a result of growing up in an environment over which one has no control, whether it’s being born in poverty, having addicted parents, going to a school that doesn’t teach, growing up in an atmosphere of drugs and violence, the list goes on and on.  This is not an excuse; it is a fact of life; it is reality.

Or alternatively, it’s a function of all of a sudden the floor dropping out from under a successful life, often because a job has gone abroad or because of  major illness that leads to bankruptcy, which can start a cycle of long term unemployment, loss of house, and even homelessness.

Everyone who as a public servant is sworn to uphold the constitution needs to remember that the purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is “to secure these rights” ... namely, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This places several responsibilities on government.

The first is to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve those goals.  And equal opportunity isn’t just a matter of ensuring that there is no discrimination in employment, housing, etc.  Real equal opportunity means that the playing field is leveled by ensuring that all children have access to the same level of quality education, something that is definitely not the case in this country.

The other major government responsibility stemming from this task is providing a safety net for those who are in need.  Whether someone is homeless or living in poverty or disabled, or at risk because they are old or unemployed, government needs to have programs that help people in need and provide them an opportunity to lift themselves up.

That this essential function of government has been so trashed by the Republican Right makes a travesty of our democracy and of their claim to be the defenders of the Constitution.

Our Culture Is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden

As told in Genesis, in the paradise that God created, man and woman were naked, but they were not embarrassed by their nakedness and they were one with all things.  The only thing forbidden to them was to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   They lived in a world where there was no knowledge of right or wrong, good or bad.  Interestingly, the paradise of Genesis is virtually identical with the Buddhist Nirvana.

But once they ate the fruit of the tree, they became aware of and were embarrassed by their nakedness.  They now had knowledge of value judgments; they were no longer innocent.  They lost God’s favor and were forced out of the garden into a world full of the frustrations of cravings, fear, and strife.

The Abrahamic faiths’ take on this story is that man is a sinner because he violated God’s commandment.  And that women are the causal source of sin because it was Eve who listened to the serpent and tempted Adam to eat the fruit; it is thus also a cautionary tale regarding sexual temptation.  Man can only be saved by obeying God, which is to obey the multilayered moral and ritual strictures of His religion (take your pick as to which one).  

But if one looks at the story with fresh eyes, without all the layers of religious interpretation by rabbis, monks, imams, and others, a different lesson takes shape.

The real lesson here is that the world of God is the world of innocence, where there is no good and evil.  There is no evil because there is no desire for what one does not have.  There is no good because man does not compare himself to others.  There is no good or evil because man is one with himself and all things.  This is the world of freedom from the known.  The point is not so much that God’s commandment was broken, but that because it was broken, mankind lost its innocence and the world was never the same.

Speed forward several millennia to the current age.  The world is filled with serpents, those who seek to entrap mankind with the knowledge of good and evil, of beauty versus ugliness, of every duality one can create.

The consumer culture on which our capitalist economy depends is based on people being manipulated by marketing into wanting more of what the masters of the world want them to crave and into thinking that a product will in some way give them entry to a better life by satisfying that craving.  We have all been taught that happiness comes from having what we don’t have and thus we have become creatures controlled by craving.

The political culture is based not on bringing people together but by dividing them into opposing camps.  Often fomenting ill will and at times even hatred towards those “others,” thus again manipulating the populace.  Political rhetoric today, such as it is, appeals mostly to the emotions, even when it is put in a form which sounds rational.

Even the prevailing religious cultures provide no refuge.  Religion, which theoretically should be the main advocate for peace on earth and goodwill towards all, instead has over the millennia been perhaps the major source of strife among mankind.  It has been, together and in concert with nationalism, the greatest divider and thus the greatest source of conflict.  And how convenient to fight others, exploit others, dominate others in the name of promoting God’s law, when in truth it is always about promoting the power of nations and individual men.  And to the extent that the fight was against “savages,” ironically those who were being “saved” often lived a life and had a culture much closer to the garden of eden than the warriors of religion.

Towards its own, religion has never really been a force to bring mankind back to the state of grace that existed in the garden of eden.  Instead, it has created a system of fear, using its own concept of good and evil to control its flock and build power and influence.  

In truth, though, none of this should be surprising.  Religion is after all, despite its protestations to the contrary, a product of man, not of God.  If it were the latter, why would there be so many different religions, all at odds with each other?  

Is there then no force in the world to help mankind return to a state of innocence, which is its birthright, and live in peace?  The only force I am personally familiar with is found in the teachings of the Buddha.  His teachings seek to enable man to perceive that all his suffering is caused by what he has learned from family and culture and that all this learned experience is empty of any intrinsic existence and has no inherent value.  When he perceives these truths, he experiences all things without the intervention of thought and emotion ... he is once more free of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  And when he reaches that state, all suffering and doubt cease.  (I must acknowledge that I am a practicing Buddhist.)

The Buddha was a historical person.  The Buddha saw his role as relieving mankind’s suffering by putting him back in touch with his true pure nature, thus ending his craving and bringing him peace.  Jesus sought to achieve a similar aim by putting man back in God's grace.

But even here, the teachings of the Buddha are one thing ... Buddhism as an organized religion can at times be something quite different, witness the Buddhist mobs doing harm to Muslims in Myanmar, or even at times vying groups of Buddhist monks fighting with each other.  These are cases of men being Buddhists in name only.  They have strayed far from the teachings of the Buddha.

Indeed all religions ... including Judaism, Christianity, Islam ... have at their core the basic moral teaching of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and most sought in their own way to bring mankind back to a state of grace because they are all based on the teachings of truly holy men.  But the basic teachings of most religions also created an us v them culture, and in the hands of less holy men the religious establishment has turned this aspect into the dominant theme of our world.

If we want to free ourselves from having tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if we want to experience peace and happiness, there is only one way, and that is to turn our back to the dominant culture and follow the simple truths of the teachings of the Buddha and the other religions, while disavowing any teaching that your religion is the only path to God.

One final note ... Eden was a place here on Earth, not a paradise one accessed in heaven upon death.  While there is no way, given the dominant forces and the conditioning of mankind, to ever achieve that state of innocence again here on Earth, we can each in our own small way create waves of Eden that spread out from each of us.

The Damaging Impact of a Lack of Community on Children and Our Society

When Hilary Clinton wrote her book, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child, there were many, especially on the right, who ridiculed her for making this statement.  Bob Dole in his 1996 presidential nomination acceptance speech said that it doesn’t take a village, it takes a family to raise a child.

But this ancient African proverb is as true today as it was when it originated in the village-based societies of Africa.  Of course it takes a family to raise a child.  The influence of the immediate family, for better or worse, has a dominant impact on a child’s  development, emotionally and otherwise.  

Children, however, do not live in an isolated world bounded by borders of their family home.  From an early age they come into contact with many other influences ... mass media, peers, teachers, strangers.  Unfortunately, in our culture, most of these influencers, even teachers, have very little interest in the healthy development of the child.  Each has their own interest that prevails.  

Media wants to influence the child to do what its bidders want the child to do.  They want to manipulate the child.  

Other children are often quite selfish and can be very cruel.  They deal with their own insecurities by acting out against others who are weaker in any way than they are.  

Teachers ... and of course there are many exceptions ... are so burdened by the number of children they must deal with and the often chaotic condition of the school and classroom that they are overwhelmed.  They go through the motions of teaching, rather than really teach.  

And strangers, except for the occasional good samaritan, have no interest in the child and will act on their own interests and needs.

What I’ve described is the antithesis of growing up in a village, at least the communal villages of primitive societies.  Even before the industrial revolution, the village in western cultures, while a self-contained society, was not communal in nature.  The impact of individualism, while so much more pronounced now, was present even in those nostalgic days.  And so the child came into contact with many people who had little or no concern for its wellbeing and development.  And its insecurities were deepened.

In the communal villages of primitive societies, the attitude towards children was very different.  Every child was in many ways everyone’s child, not just the parents’.  Everyone in the village had a concern for a child’s wellbeing and development.  That was the culture.  The strength of people lay in the combined strength of the village, not in their individual attainments.  You of course had individuals who excelled in various areas, but their work was dedicated to the good of the whole, not themselves as individuals.  A child brought up in this atmosphere felt secure and wanted, a part of a larger whole.

It is this absence of community in our society that has resulted in the prevalence of gangs and other antisocial organizations, and more recently of growing ultra-religious groups, that provide the feeling of community that everyone yearns for but at the cost of the larger society’s cohesion.  It is the absence of community that results in a heightened insecurity and an attitude that the only thing that’s important is me, and perhaps my immediate family.  We live in a dog eat dog culture because of the absence of a feeling of shared community and responsibility for each other.

I don’t know how we revive a sense of community in our country.  We are farther from that ideal now then ever, I fear.  And there appears to be precious little interest in turning back from the polarized state we are in.  It does not bode well for the future of our country.

Schools As the Educator of Citizens

What is the function of a public school system?  Generally people would say that the function of a school is to teach children the practical skills they will need in order to maximize their opportunities in their work lives ... as one used to say, the three “R’s”: reading, riting, and rithmetic.

And while that remains a critically important function, one in which many schools, especially inner city schools, fail terribly, there is another equally important function on which the future of our democracy depends: preparing students to be good citizens.  

What does it mean to be a good citizen?  It means to be committed to the American social contract ... that with the benefits of citizenship comes a shared responsibility for the welfare of the nation and of our fellow citizens, each according to his means.  We meet that responsibility in many ways, one of which is paying taxes to support the government in its work to protect the public good and work towards ensuring equality of opportunity for all, as promised in the Declaration of Independence.  This is not a conservative or liberal statement, it is the essence of the American view of citizenship, democracy, and the role of government.

There have always been differences between Republicans and Democrats on how government should perform this role and how large a part government should take.  But there has never before in modern times been disagreement between the parties in the essence of the American social contract and the role of government.  The social contract is apolitical.  It has been supported by all administrations since President Teddy Roosevelt.

But that changed with the election of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans who have followed him, first by turning the government more into an enabler of the rich rather than a protector of the public good and most recently by an almost complete renunciation of the role of government in ensuring equal opportunity.  As Republicans have said, “If you fail, it’s your own fault.”  Period.

The issues of citizenship and the social contract do not, however, just apply to people with  means. The poor as well have responsibilities.  One responsibility that applies to both the poor and those with means is to obey the law, to not abuse or injure their fellow citizens.  Whether it's the poor drug-addict who steals, even from his family, to support his habit, or the investment banker who acts in conscious disregard of the impact of his actions on his fellow citizens to support his "money habit," both actions are equally unethical and contrary to the social contract.

Schools need to address the issue of citizenship, and obviously in an apolitical way.  Schools should teach courtesy, respect, ethics, and shared responsibility, while pointing out how conservatives and liberals have often disagreed on how these values should be implemented.

If we want the future of America to be strong, then the people, the body politic, and the economy of the United States must be strong.  And it will only remain strong if its citizens are committed to their country and their fellow citizens, and if we have, not just a thriving elite class, but a thriving middle class and a diminishing number of poor.

When Legislators Flout the Law

First a question.  Do you think that part of the oath that a legislator (federal or state) takes upon being sworn into office includes “upholding the law?”  The answer, shockingly, is no.  Congressmen, for example, swear to uphold the constitution, but there’s nothing about upholding the law.  Neither is upholding the law part of their defined responsibilities.

I guess the reason is that all citizens are supposed to obey and uphold the law, even if they disagree with it.  So legislators have no heightened responsibility to uphold the law.

Let’s go further with this.  Should legislators be expected to uphold the spirit of the law ... that is, not act in such a way that clearly flouts the intent of the law?  The average citizen certainly does not have this responsibility.  If there’s a way around the law, it’s a citizen’s time-honored right to take it.

I would argue, however, that it is a legislator’s heightened responsibility not just to uphold the law ... the letter of it ... but to uphold the spirit of the law.  Let me discuss two recent examples of what happens when they don’t.

In 2007, after a scandal involving junkets payed for by lobbyists, Congress passed a law prohibiting lobbyists from giving Congressmen gifts of just about any value.  The offending junkets were taken by Congressmen, typically to resort locations, where they would play and talk with the sponsoring lobbyists, obviously with the intent of influencing the Congressmen with regard to legislation or regulation that affected the interests of the lobbyists.

So what did lobbyists and their Congressional friends do?  They came up with a way to achieve the same end but not violate the letter of the law.  Junkets are now funded by PACs controlled by the Congressmen which are in turn funded by money collected from lobbyists or the corporations they represent.  Since the lobbyists are not paying for the junkets directly, there is no violation of the law!

A recent article in The New York Times documents how Congressmen, mostly but not all Republican, flout the intent of this law.   Should Congressmen be able to legally do this?  Should they at least be subject to an ethics violation?  When there is knowing violation of the intent of the law, I think the answer to both should be, yes, but certainly at least to the latter.

The other instance involves the response of various states to a series of recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that limit the use of life sentences without parole for juveniles.  The underlying reason for these decisions is that children, even those who commit murder, are often less culpable than adults and deserve a chance at redemption.  

But states including Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have gotten around the spirit and intent of these decisions either by piling on sentences that amount to life without parole or refusing to apply the ruling retroactively to juveniles who are currently serving life without parole.  Even when some states have responded with rehearings on sentencing, the new sentences imposed have been harsh (in the Florida example cited, 50 years or more) and against the spirit of the decisions. 

It is a sad statement regarding the rule of law in our democracy that those elected to pass and, one would assume, uphold the laws flout their intent so brazenly.  

Ironically, the proponents of harsh treatment of juvenile criminals are typically conservative Republicans.  They are adamant that criminals must pay the price and that they should not be coddled, regardless their age.  And yet when it comes to their own activities, they have no problem in flouting the intent of the law while obeying the letter of the law.

It may be the American way, but it is a bad way.

Prisons As Monastery Not Dungeon

In my previous post, “Rethinking Criminal Justice in a Civilized Society,” I argued that if a crime does not warrant the death penalty, then rehabilitation should be the predominant motivator in sentencing and its execution, not retribution, not punishment.

Prisons today are merely modern-day dungeons with a prettier face.  No longer do inmates have to fight off rats in dank, dark cells.  They receive decent meals, are provided beds (assuming the prison is not overcrowded), are allowed visitors, get some minimum of exercise and daylight, etc.  Some education is often available.

But the dominant policy is still punishment.  Prisons are a spiritual dead zone.  Except for insuring order, inmates are left pretty much to their own devices; they are provided no direction in changing their lives.  And so despite the fact that they are confined and watched, criminal conduct and gangs flourish in prisons.  They are a breeding ground for a more committed, smarter, criminal.  As a result, more than two-thirds of released inmates commit new crimes, often more serious and violent, within three years of leaving prison.

Is this really what our society expects from our criminal justice system?   There are two reasons why people support the punishment model.  First, it feels right ... the old “eye for eye” perspective.  But I think most people support it to improve safety.  They understand that most prisoners return to their communities within a few years, and people believe that punishment reduces the likelihood that they will commit more crimes after being released from prison.  Also, the theory is that it will deter others from committing crimes to begin with.  But our experience shows that our current prison philosophy secures neither end.

Our society’s answer to this problem has been to increase the severity of prison sentences, even for the most minor of crimes.  But that hasn’t worked either.  All it has done is create even more hardened criminals at an incredible cost to society (both regarding the cost of housing inmates as well as the cost of a continuing career of crime).

No , the answer lies elsewhere ... in the concept of rehabilitation.  Unfortunately, the concept of rehabilitation has been pretty much discredited because it’s just been given lip service, it has never really been given an opportunity to work.  Rehabilitation has to be the guiding principle; it can’t be a side effort in the midst of a brutalizing environment.  And then you have the rants of the right wing who argue against “coddling” criminals.  

In a series of pieces arguing for more emphasis on rehabilitation in The New York Times, the case was made for providing all the therapy needed and all the education desired, preferably within a “locked, safe and secure home-like residential community.”  

While I agree on the need for and the benefit of more therapy of all types and education, I believe that for most inmates, certainly for the more hardened ones, given the nature of their environmental backgrounds, a far more structured environment is necessary in order to ingrain in them new patterns of thought and behavior.  And so I would advocate a setting more patterned after the monastic experience, replete with both a regimented daily schedule and spiritual lessons and meditation.  A repurposing of our existing prison structures.

Why?  For much the same reason that boot camp is necessary to turn recruits into soldiers.  Most inmates, like most individuals, have grown up in very undisciplined circumstances. Although life does not require the discipline of the military or a monastery, discipline in the face of all the temptations and assaults of our society would be very helpful in enabling released inmates to resist falling back into familiar behaviors.

And because most inmates, like most individuals, have grown up in an atmosphere that has created a feeling of insecurity and a negative sense of self, a non-denominational spiritual program including meditation would be very helpful.  Inmates need to develop a new way of relating to themselves and to those around them, both family and the larger society.  

Above all they need to develop faith in themselves, and that can only come from a more robust spiritual life, together with education and various forms of therapy.  As a Buddhist, I would advocate a program based on Buddhist teaching as it is non-denominational and has been shown in numerous prison settings to be very effective in helping inmates (granted that in those cases the inmates self-selected the program).

The question needs to be put to the public:  “Is your primary concern regarding the functioning of the criminal justice system one of increasing personal safety?”   If the answer is overwhelmingly yes, then the future direction of prison/sentencing policy should be clear.  Rehabilitation needs to be the dominant goal of prison policy.

We’ve built all these prisons; we confine all these people; let’s make better use of that opportunity for the benefit of the public as well as the inmates.