A Perspective On Violence

 An interview of David Garland  posted on Jacobin provides an insightful overview of the course and causes of violence in the U.S. on both sides of the Law.

Why the US Has Such a Brutal Penal Regime

Some excerpts:

"Police in the United States kill civilians at between five and forty times the rate of similarly rich countries, for instance, and the United States imprisons people at about seven times the rate of economically comparable countries."

"...the prison population in this country reached a peak of 760 per 100,000 in 2008. The European average is a bit more than 100 per 100,000..."
 

"The US homicide rate has fallen considerably since that peak in the 1990s. It’s now near six per 100,000, but that’s still six times as high as European nations — and more than three times higher than Canada."

"In the 1970s, there were about eighty or ninety civilians killed every year by the police in New York City. Now it’s about eight or nine civilians killed each year, and that has to do with training, accountability, selection, and practices in the police force."

David Garland is the Arthur T. Vanderbilt professor of law and professor of sociology at New York University and an honorary professor at the University of Edinburgh.

A Perspective on Violence

 

It does seem that we are seeing an uptick in violence, including the lethal varieties. I also seems important, however, to not lose sight of the broader context.  Perhaps the most important element is that instances of violence are reported instantly and world-wide.  In the longer term it also should not be forgotten that politically-connected violence and assassinations are a time-honored feature of American life.

Which is not to deny that recent killings have a clear connection to the current political climate, but there are other contributing factors unique to our time.  Internet-based social networking and gaming are an obvious place to look. It seems a little simplistic, though, to ascribe violent tendencies to mere exposure.

It is possible that the more important aspect to examine in the online experience is that so many people seem to easily become totally immersed in digital interaction, and perhaps even subject to a confusion of reality with imagined scenarios in which violence has no consequences.

What has so far been revealed about the life of Charlie Kirk's assassin points to just such a disconnection from reality.  Look at the bravado of the online statements prior to the killing.  And then consider the fear expressed when the killer was actually confronted by police.

So, what can be done to lessen the psychological and societal damages that are occurring?  Perhaps a more immediately practical question is to ask what should not be done.  One loud and immediate response has been to call for the execution of the miscreant, partly it is clear out of a need for revenge, but also with the assertion that the example will serve as a deterrent.

There is ample evidence that such a course will have little effect on behaviors based on impulsivity or a distorted sense of reality. It might also be argued that State-based killing is really just another contributor to the acceptance of violence as a legitimate solution to complex problems.

In the What Might Be Done category, the fact that the country is awash in guns should point to one course of action.