In my earlier post about thinking errors, I mentioned several logical fallacies and attempted to give examples of how they are used in modern political rhetoric. This is important. Learning these helps us to know how to ask the right questions to hold people accountable for their assertions. For example, I've been told, "The only reason Christians oppose government assistance to the poor is because they are racist." This is a classic Argumentum ad Hominem, or attack against the person. This statement, given as a response to my assertion that perhaps we should reduce federal spending in entitlement programs, and move to a state centered solution that supports private charities, did not respond to my argument, but in a round about way, attacked me. The response to an argumentum ad hominem is not to get defensive, "I'm not a racist." This shifts the focus of the debate away from the topic at hand. The response properly is, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me is true, it has nothing to do with whether or not reducing government spending on entitlemnet and shifting the responsibility to states and private charities is a better use of our resources when it comes to helping the poor. What do you have to say about that?"
Understanding logical fallacies helps us ask the right questions.
I've decided to name a new logical fallacy. Are you ready? Yes, I know, I 'm not some great philosopher of history who has made a careful study of these things. I have, however, noticed that people will often try to win an argument with what I've decided to call the "Fallacy of Opinion." People, when asked to defend an assertion that they make, will fall back on the statement, "Well, it's just my opinion." After making this pronouncement, the person then assumes an air of invincibility, as if they have solemnly declared from the Chair of Peter an incontrovertible truth.
And, after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Ok. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. What seems to have been forgotten, however, is that opinions can be wrong.
This takes me back to when Blessed Pope John Paul II was in St. Louis. There were people who were venomously anti-Catholic passing out pamphlets and brochures on the streets outside the dome where Blessed John Paul was going to be celebrating Mass. I collected a few of these pamphlets, which were filled with assertions about what Catholics believe that were not true. I approached one of the young men passing these pamphlets. He greeted me cordially, and asked me if I would like one of his brochures. I explained to him that I already had one, had read it, and that the information that was inside of it about what Catholics believe is wrong. I pointed to 3 specific examples of statements it made about what Catholics believe, things that we really don't believe. His response, "Well, this is just our opinion."
I said, "Yes, but it's not correct. We don't really believe these things."
"Well, it's just our opinion," he said again.
"I understand that," I said, "but you are passing out misinformation. Your brochure says things that are not true."
"It's just our opinion, man." He said...again.
"Your opinion is wrong." I said, and walked away recognizing that this individual was invincibly ignorant.
Having an opinion does not shield one from questioning. The reason is because an opinion is an interpretation of something. If I have an opinion about something, what that means is that I have looked at something and formed an individual interpretation of the matter. It is possible that I am looking at the thing wrongly. It is possible that I have misinterpreted something, or missed something, or been in a bad mood. Anything can affect my opinion of something. That's why stating that something is simply my opinion is not a logical defense of an assertion.
There is also a qualitative difference between the opinions, "vanilla is better than chocolate," and "Christians hate gays." One is a matter of personal preference. The other is a statement of sweeping generalization. Ok, you like vanilla better than chocolate. That's fine. But I'm not going to let you get away with characterizing an entire group of people with a sweeping generalization without proof that it's true. People used to make sweeping generalizations like this, we called it racism and prejudice.
The response to someone, when they have finally been backed into a corner and have to punt their indefensible position by saying, "Well, it's just my opinion," or, "Well, that's just what I think," is to ask them on what they are basing their opinion. I often assume a stance of ignorance: "I just want to know what facts, or polls or any other proof your basing your opinion on, because I have a different opinion based on what I've seen, and I want to know whether what I've seen is accurate or not."
It really is ok to point out to someone that their "opinion" probably is not based on any fact or logic at all. Just because it is their "opinion" doesn't make it immune from questioning.
But then, that's just my opinion.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thinking Errors in Modern Political Rhetoric
I've been reviewing a lot of philosophy lately. A Facebook "conversation" in which I was engaged with a Facebook friend inspired me to review the basic rules of logic. There are some fundamental logical fallacies that I've found, one of which I wrote an extensive piece on not long ago.
As I listen to modern political discourse, I hear conservatives and liberals making the exact same logical errors. The difference is in the conclusions that are drawn from the logical errors. I've decided to list some here in this blog post, with examples, so that hopefully you can identify these logical fallacies when they are used.
This is important.
This is very important.
These logical fallacies are fundamental to critical thinking. Without understanding these, we become people who accept things at face value. Not knowing them, we become sheep who simply chant the slogans of political ideologues on the right or left. Without them, we make foolish choices in our government leaders, because we have not stopped to think for ourselves about whether the content of their campaign messages have merit.
So here are some basic thinking errors:
Argumentum ad hominem: I've written about this one already, as I noted in the first paragraph. Basically, this is when someone responds to an argument with a personal attack against the person who is making the argument. When talking to liberals, I've been called a racist, a mysogynist, a homophobe, an "angry, religious, white man," and any other number of names. The conservatives are as guilty of this as the liberals. Anne Coulter has written books that insinuate that liberals are akin to terrorists. People accuse liberalism of being a "mental illness," which is a very subtle attack against the person who espouses liberal ideals. These are all personal attacks that do not address the problem. I've decided from now on that if I get into a conversation with someone, and their response is that I'm racist or anything else, I will not become defensive. That is a distraction to the point of the argument. From now on, if the response is an argumentum ad hominem, my response is going to be, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me personally is true, what does that have to do with the point I just made?"
Fallacy of False Alternatives: This one is used A LOT in modern political rhetoric. Some of the liberal uses are: "If we defund Planned Parenthood, women will not have access to needed medical care and will die." That's not true, there are multiple, multiple resources out there for women of low income to access medical care. Forcing PP to survive off of private donations will not result in the death of women due to lack of medical care. Another liberal use we hear in the gun debate today: "Allowing assault weapons will result in the deaths of many innocent people." A quick look at crime statistics will tell you that this is not the case. I've written about this before, too. The number of so-called "assault weapons" used in crimes is actually quite low. You have more of a chance to be stabbed by a kitchen butcher knife in a crime than of being shot with an "assault weapon." Conservatives use this: "Any regulation results in a socialistic style government, and goes against the intentions of our founding fathers." This is not true. The fact is that the federal government is charged in the constitution with regulating interstate and international commerce. The founding fathers saw the need for this type of regulation from the federal government. So the question is not whether there should be regulations, but what should be the scope of the regulations.
Ambiguity Fallacy: This fallacy, and its close cousin, The Fallacy of Equivocation, occurs when a word that is used is not clearly defined. The best example of this that I've come across in modern political discourse is the liberal left's cry that, "The rich should pay their fair share." There are two sets of ambiguous terms in this sentence. First, the word "rich." Who are the rich? What income level or tax bracket should be considered rich? President Obama has said on occasion that the "rich" are those making more than $250,000 per year. Of course, on other occasions, he has said that the "rich" are those who make more than $200,000 per year. Then on other occasions, he has defined it as those making more than $150,000 per year. Even the President's varying definitions demonstrate that "rich" is a highly subjective term. For example, a child whose parents bring home a collective $35,000 per year may think that a family that brings home $75,000 per year are rich. This word is too ambiguous to mean anything. Even more hard to define are the words, "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Should that be defined as an amount of money that "the rich" are allowed to keep out of their own annual income? What percentage of their annual income should they be forced to pay in order to be considered "fair"? Or should "fair share" be defined as a percentage of the total of tax revenue the government receives? For how much of the total tax revenue that goes to the government should the "rich" be responsible before it is considered to be their "fair share"? Another example is in the gun control argument, when people toss around the term "assault weapon." What is an "assault weapon"? Under Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, the adding of a plastic pistol grip to certain guns would make that gun an "assault weapon", and therefore illegal. The fact that this very same gun is legal without the pistol grip, which is a cosmentic feature that has no effect on the functionality or lethality of the weapon, is irrelevant. Ambiguous terms are tossed around all too often.
Straw Man Argument: This occurs when someone tells you what you believe, and then proceeds to tell you why what you believe is wrong. Usually, in my experience when this happens to me, the person has no concept at all of what I actually believe. They have constructed arguments against an opponent that they have also constructed. Liberals and conservatives do this regularly. The most famous recent example is Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" speech that he gave at the Republican convention. Straw man arguments are easy to recognize. They usually begin with the words, "Well, you believe that..." or "The only reason you think that is because..."
Poisoned Well Argument: This is closely related to both the Argumentum ad Hominem and Straw Man Argument. The poisoned well argument states that there is something wrong with the source of information one uses to back up the points of an argument. This is what happens when people discount entirely a news organization, like the mainstream media, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. If it came from MSNBC, it must be just more liberal jargon. If it came from FOX NEWS, it must be just more conservative crap. This argument does not address the issue or information, but rather states that because of the source of the information or issue, the information or issue has no merit.
"No True Scotsman" Argument: This argument, again, is closely related to others. This argument comes from the old statement, "Angus eats quiche. No true Scotsman eats quiche. Therefore, Angus (despite the fact that he is born and raised in Scotland) cannot be a true Scotsman." You set up the argument in such a way that any exception to your statement is dismissed automatically. Certain Christian denominations use this logical fallacy when they discuss their concept of salvation. "Once you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you have gained salvation. A true believer cannot lose salvation. Person A professed his faith, but is no longer a Christian. Therefore, Person A was never a true believer." This argument is used by people trying to desparage the Christian Conservative movement. "One of Christianity's mandates is to help the poor. The Christian Conservative movement opposes government assistance to the poor. Therefore, those who oppose government assistance to the poor are not true Christians." This argument depends on the fallacy of false alternatives. The person has stated that the only alternatives are government assistance to the poor or no assistance to the poor. The person does not recognize that there are multiple private charities who provide assistance to the poor. The person making this argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority of Christian Conservatives donate more time, talent and treasure to charitable organizations privately than any other sector, and significantly more than members of the liberal left who make this argument criticizing the Christian Conservative movement. There are multiple ways to help the poor without government mandating it through the tax funded entitlement programs. This means that someone could be a true Christian and still oppose the government entitlement programs, because the person uses personal time, talent and treasure to support private charities.
Appeal to Popularity: This logical fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. In an argument, it occurs when someone states, "Well, the majority now support (proposition A). Therefore, (proposition A) should be our course of action." Whether or not the majority support a proposition or stance is irrelevant to the merit of that proposition or stance. Remember, the majority of Americans once supported slavery. This was used when Bush invaded Iraq. Public support was garnered to help justify the war in Iraq. This is also being used in the gay marriage debate. It is irrelevant whether the majority either support or reject gay marriage. The merits or demerits of allowing homosexuals to marry stand independent of public sentiment.
Lastly, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post told me in one of our conversations that, "If Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, believes the rich should pay more in taxes, I listen, and you should too." That's an appeal to authority, plain and simple. "This authoritative or famous person said it, therefore it must be true." Conservatives do this just as often with their frequent appeals to Ronald Reagan. As a conservative, I'm about to commit heresy. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was wrong. The facts and soung logic of an argument have to hold the argument together, not the arguer or the authority who first advanced the argument.
And there's the crux. There is too much rhetoric these days that is based on emotion, not on fact and sound, philosophical reasoning. It's really irritating to me. I mean really irritating. It's so irritating that I've made a personal decision not to engage in political conversations with people who demonstrate basic thinking errors in their conversations. Conservative or liberal, doesn't matter to me. At the point I realize you are just spouting the mantras of your political side, I will not talk to you about politics anymore.
In my opinion, these basic, fundamental rules of logic should be taught in schools, starting at an early age. This type of knowledge helps people be prepared to vote. This is information that can help us hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words.
Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourself. Learn the basic rules of logic. Then we, as a people, might be able to think our way out of the mess our politicians, held unaccountable and unquestioned, have led us into for too long.
As I listen to modern political discourse, I hear conservatives and liberals making the exact same logical errors. The difference is in the conclusions that are drawn from the logical errors. I've decided to list some here in this blog post, with examples, so that hopefully you can identify these logical fallacies when they are used.
This is important.
This is very important.
These logical fallacies are fundamental to critical thinking. Without understanding these, we become people who accept things at face value. Not knowing them, we become sheep who simply chant the slogans of political ideologues on the right or left. Without them, we make foolish choices in our government leaders, because we have not stopped to think for ourselves about whether the content of their campaign messages have merit.
So here are some basic thinking errors:
Argumentum ad hominem: I've written about this one already, as I noted in the first paragraph. Basically, this is when someone responds to an argument with a personal attack against the person who is making the argument. When talking to liberals, I've been called a racist, a mysogynist, a homophobe, an "angry, religious, white man," and any other number of names. The conservatives are as guilty of this as the liberals. Anne Coulter has written books that insinuate that liberals are akin to terrorists. People accuse liberalism of being a "mental illness," which is a very subtle attack against the person who espouses liberal ideals. These are all personal attacks that do not address the problem. I've decided from now on that if I get into a conversation with someone, and their response is that I'm racist or anything else, I will not become defensive. That is a distraction to the point of the argument. From now on, if the response is an argumentum ad hominem, my response is going to be, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me personally is true, what does that have to do with the point I just made?"
Fallacy of False Alternatives: This one is used A LOT in modern political rhetoric. Some of the liberal uses are: "If we defund Planned Parenthood, women will not have access to needed medical care and will die." That's not true, there are multiple, multiple resources out there for women of low income to access medical care. Forcing PP to survive off of private donations will not result in the death of women due to lack of medical care. Another liberal use we hear in the gun debate today: "Allowing assault weapons will result in the deaths of many innocent people." A quick look at crime statistics will tell you that this is not the case. I've written about this before, too. The number of so-called "assault weapons" used in crimes is actually quite low. You have more of a chance to be stabbed by a kitchen butcher knife in a crime than of being shot with an "assault weapon." Conservatives use this: "Any regulation results in a socialistic style government, and goes against the intentions of our founding fathers." This is not true. The fact is that the federal government is charged in the constitution with regulating interstate and international commerce. The founding fathers saw the need for this type of regulation from the federal government. So the question is not whether there should be regulations, but what should be the scope of the regulations.
Ambiguity Fallacy: This fallacy, and its close cousin, The Fallacy of Equivocation, occurs when a word that is used is not clearly defined. The best example of this that I've come across in modern political discourse is the liberal left's cry that, "The rich should pay their fair share." There are two sets of ambiguous terms in this sentence. First, the word "rich." Who are the rich? What income level or tax bracket should be considered rich? President Obama has said on occasion that the "rich" are those making more than $250,000 per year. Of course, on other occasions, he has said that the "rich" are those who make more than $200,000 per year. Then on other occasions, he has defined it as those making more than $150,000 per year. Even the President's varying definitions demonstrate that "rich" is a highly subjective term. For example, a child whose parents bring home a collective $35,000 per year may think that a family that brings home $75,000 per year are rich. This word is too ambiguous to mean anything. Even more hard to define are the words, "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Should that be defined as an amount of money that "the rich" are allowed to keep out of their own annual income? What percentage of their annual income should they be forced to pay in order to be considered "fair"? Or should "fair share" be defined as a percentage of the total of tax revenue the government receives? For how much of the total tax revenue that goes to the government should the "rich" be responsible before it is considered to be their "fair share"? Another example is in the gun control argument, when people toss around the term "assault weapon." What is an "assault weapon"? Under Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, the adding of a plastic pistol grip to certain guns would make that gun an "assault weapon", and therefore illegal. The fact that this very same gun is legal without the pistol grip, which is a cosmentic feature that has no effect on the functionality or lethality of the weapon, is irrelevant. Ambiguous terms are tossed around all too often.
Straw Man Argument: This occurs when someone tells you what you believe, and then proceeds to tell you why what you believe is wrong. Usually, in my experience when this happens to me, the person has no concept at all of what I actually believe. They have constructed arguments against an opponent that they have also constructed. Liberals and conservatives do this regularly. The most famous recent example is Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" speech that he gave at the Republican convention. Straw man arguments are easy to recognize. They usually begin with the words, "Well, you believe that..." or "The only reason you think that is because..."
Poisoned Well Argument: This is closely related to both the Argumentum ad Hominem and Straw Man Argument. The poisoned well argument states that there is something wrong with the source of information one uses to back up the points of an argument. This is what happens when people discount entirely a news organization, like the mainstream media, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. If it came from MSNBC, it must be just more liberal jargon. If it came from FOX NEWS, it must be just more conservative crap. This argument does not address the issue or information, but rather states that because of the source of the information or issue, the information or issue has no merit.
"No True Scotsman" Argument: This argument, again, is closely related to others. This argument comes from the old statement, "Angus eats quiche. No true Scotsman eats quiche. Therefore, Angus (despite the fact that he is born and raised in Scotland) cannot be a true Scotsman." You set up the argument in such a way that any exception to your statement is dismissed automatically. Certain Christian denominations use this logical fallacy when they discuss their concept of salvation. "Once you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you have gained salvation. A true believer cannot lose salvation. Person A professed his faith, but is no longer a Christian. Therefore, Person A was never a true believer." This argument is used by people trying to desparage the Christian Conservative movement. "One of Christianity's mandates is to help the poor. The Christian Conservative movement opposes government assistance to the poor. Therefore, those who oppose government assistance to the poor are not true Christians." This argument depends on the fallacy of false alternatives. The person has stated that the only alternatives are government assistance to the poor or no assistance to the poor. The person does not recognize that there are multiple private charities who provide assistance to the poor. The person making this argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority of Christian Conservatives donate more time, talent and treasure to charitable organizations privately than any other sector, and significantly more than members of the liberal left who make this argument criticizing the Christian Conservative movement. There are multiple ways to help the poor without government mandating it through the tax funded entitlement programs. This means that someone could be a true Christian and still oppose the government entitlement programs, because the person uses personal time, talent and treasure to support private charities.
Appeal to Popularity: This logical fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. In an argument, it occurs when someone states, "Well, the majority now support (proposition A). Therefore, (proposition A) should be our course of action." Whether or not the majority support a proposition or stance is irrelevant to the merit of that proposition or stance. Remember, the majority of Americans once supported slavery. This was used when Bush invaded Iraq. Public support was garnered to help justify the war in Iraq. This is also being used in the gay marriage debate. It is irrelevant whether the majority either support or reject gay marriage. The merits or demerits of allowing homosexuals to marry stand independent of public sentiment.
Lastly, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post told me in one of our conversations that, "If Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, believes the rich should pay more in taxes, I listen, and you should too." That's an appeal to authority, plain and simple. "This authoritative or famous person said it, therefore it must be true." Conservatives do this just as often with their frequent appeals to Ronald Reagan. As a conservative, I'm about to commit heresy. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was wrong. The facts and soung logic of an argument have to hold the argument together, not the arguer or the authority who first advanced the argument.
And there's the crux. There is too much rhetoric these days that is based on emotion, not on fact and sound, philosophical reasoning. It's really irritating to me. I mean really irritating. It's so irritating that I've made a personal decision not to engage in political conversations with people who demonstrate basic thinking errors in their conversations. Conservative or liberal, doesn't matter to me. At the point I realize you are just spouting the mantras of your political side, I will not talk to you about politics anymore.
In my opinion, these basic, fundamental rules of logic should be taught in schools, starting at an early age. This type of knowledge helps people be prepared to vote. This is information that can help us hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words.
Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourself. Learn the basic rules of logic. Then we, as a people, might be able to think our way out of the mess our politicians, held unaccountable and unquestioned, have led us into for too long.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Thoughts on My Work in the Prison
I’ve been at the prison working for over a month now. As a
good friend put it when I said it was interesting work, “Interesting, a word that
condemns with subtle praise.”
It is interesting though. I have about 81 guys with varying degrees of mental illness on my caseload. The system has 5 classifications of what they call Mental Health scores. MH-1 are those guys with no history of needing any mental health intervention other than an occasional visit with a therapist due to circumstantial situations. MH-2 means that at some point in the person’s history, he has been on mental health medication or had more involved mental health interventions. MH-3 means that the person is currently involved in the mental health programs, taking psychotropic medications and/or seeing a therapist, but the person is probably pretty stable at this point. MH-4 means the person is actively psychotic, or perhaps in an active episode of depression or a bipolar manic phase, or otherwise engaged in a serious, debilitating mental health episode. MH-5 means the person has completely lost touch with reality to the point where he is a danger to himself or to others
We have only one MH-5 in our prison. Most MH-5 individuals will be found in the state hospital. The one gentleman who is an MH-5 level inmate is in a special “Secure Social Rehabilitation Unit,” or SSRU, which is a separate program than the normal mental health programs we run. The SSRU has a large number of MH-4 level offenders, and the purpose of the SSRU is to teach basic living skills like hygiene and communication techniques to the inmates there. The SSRU is trying to get the inmates functional enough to be able to live within the normal population of the prison. I’m not involved in the SSRU.
Also, within the prison system, there is a special unit called the Enhanced Care Unit (ECU). You can think of it as the nursing home for the prison. These are offenders who have gotten old, whose health is failing, and who need special assistance in activities of daily living, i.e. mobility (confined to wheelchair), or need specialized medical equipment like oxygen tanks. This unit is full of elderly men, most of whom are barely mobile. I’ve been asked to work within this unit with these men, in addition to the 81 guys on my normal caseload. The ECU raises interesting moral questions for me about the nature of our justice system. The men in this unit would probably be confined to a nursing home if they were not in prison, or perhaps be living with a family member because their medical needs would keep them from being active in society. I philosophically believe that the purpose of prison is to protect society against those who would violate the rights of others. The men in the ECU have committed heinous crimes. Some of them committed their crimes at a young age, and have been in prison 30, 40 or maybe even 50 years. Some of them committed their crimes at an older age. I’m currently working with a guy in the ECU who did not go to prison until he was 57 years old. These men pose no threat to society at this time. Why do we keep them incarcerated? There is a fine line between justice and revenge.
The majority of my normal caseload is MH-3 level inmates. There are those on my caseload who have legitimate mental health needs. There are also those on my caseload who have figured out that in prison, drugs are currency. These men claim to have mental health problems, and have spoken loud enough and long enough that they have gotten to see a doctor. They are now being prescribed medications, which they “cheek.” This means when they present to take their medications, they will put the pills in their mouth, but not swallow them. When they leave the medication area, they spit them out and store them to sell to other inmates. The problem is, a fairly intelligent individual with a little time on his hands could study mental illness enough to be able to say the right things to get a diagnosis. In prison, you have a community of some highly intelligent individuals with a lot of time on their hands. They figure out quickly how to work the system. But, as Mad Eye Moody said when discussing the Imperius Curse, “How do you sort out the liars?”
There is a gut feeling I get when I think someone is lying about their mental health condition. The litigious nature of medical care and the litigious nature of inmates in prison (a lot of time on their hands with nothing to do but sue people), however, conspire together to make us at times more interested in covering ourselves from liability than challenging criminal behavior. If someone isn’t lying, but my gut feeling says he is, I can set myself up for an awful lot of trouble.
The other piece of this is a lesson I actually learned from Nathaniel. Nathaniel has a distinct advantage over me when he and I go toe-to-toe on something. He’s not afraid that he’s going to get hurt. This is the same advantage that inmates in the prison have over us. They’re not afraid of hurting or even killing themselves to make a point. If someone claims he is suicidal for secondary gain (claiming to be suicidal, not because he actually is, but because he wants something else), and we know this, we will not call his bluff. The reason is because most inmates are not afraid of hurting themselves to prove us wrong. In other words, if someone claims to be suicidal for secondary gain, and I call his bluff and send him back to his cell, he will break his own arm or fall backwards off his sink causing a possible head injury or tie his sheet around his neck and secure the other end to cut off his oxygen, just to show me that he’s willing to go further to get his perceived need met than I am to address his criminal behavior.
Then you have the guys who legitimately are suicidal. They’ve lost hope. They’ve lost purpose. They don’t care anymore. So we treat all these criminals as if they are telling the truth, because some of them are.
In JCCC, there’s another classification according to housing unit. Houses 1-5 are what are known as the General Population houses (GP). These houses are divided sort of…more or less…according to the level of threat the inmates pose in terms of becoming violent. For example, the ECU that I discussed above is in Housing Unit (HU) 1. These guys aren’t young enough, spry enough, or healthy enough to become violent. It sort of goes up from there. HU 5 is the exception, which contains the Intensive Therapeutic Community (ITC) program. Wow. Different world from the rest of the prison. These guys are intense about challenging each other to become better people. I can tell the difference within the first 5 minutes of talking with an inmate whether he has been through the ITC program or not. I would trust an ITC graduate to babysit my kids. Well, some of them. The drug addicts and murderers I would, but probably not the child molesters.
HU 6, 7 and 8 are what are known as the “adseg” units. That’s Administrative Segregation. These guys are violent. They’ve gotten a bunch of minor conduct violations or have gotten a major violation and are now segregated. This is “the hole.” HU 6 are the guys who are getting ready to get back into GP. They’ve gotten most of their privileges back, and have gone a significant amount of time without further violations. HU 7 are the hard cases in adseg. They have no privileges. They are in their cells 23 and a half hours of the day, most with a cell mate, with no TV, no radio, nothing but a pen and a piece of paper a day to keep themselves occupied. They eat, sleep, exercise, and do everything else in their cell. HU 8 are those guys who are such a danger that they can’t even have a cell mate. They are completely isolated because they will hurt whoever they are around.
Two-thirds of my 81 guys on my caseload are in HU 6, 7 and 8. That’s where I spend the majority of my work week. Good times. Yeah.
What makes it worth it? I go back to what I wrote in a previous blog. The relationship is the key. Being present in the life of someone who has been so wounded that lying and manipulation is first nature to the person can be difficult at days. In that rare moment when someone realizes that there are other ways to go about life, I see the value of my work. I was reminded this week while working with 2 gentlemen who were sentenced to multiple life terms without possibility of parole of how important hope is. These 2 men know they will die within the gray concrete walls of the prison. They have both lost hope. They both asked me the question, “What was the purpose of my life?” Notice they said, “was”, not “is.” They referred to themselves in the past tense. They had lost sight of any bigger hand or greater plan beyond the gray walls of “the camp.” It was sad, sad, sad to be in the room with them. Helping them develop a sense of hope and a sense of purpose is an intimidating thought to me.
I believe, though, that’s the very purpose of this “therapeutic” relationship. That’s where the challenge and the reward come. I believe that’s the mud into which Jesus wants me to wade. I believe in hope. I believe in purpose, even within the gray walls of JCCC. I believe in these men.
It is interesting though. I have about 81 guys with varying degrees of mental illness on my caseload. The system has 5 classifications of what they call Mental Health scores. MH-1 are those guys with no history of needing any mental health intervention other than an occasional visit with a therapist due to circumstantial situations. MH-2 means that at some point in the person’s history, he has been on mental health medication or had more involved mental health interventions. MH-3 means that the person is currently involved in the mental health programs, taking psychotropic medications and/or seeing a therapist, but the person is probably pretty stable at this point. MH-4 means the person is actively psychotic, or perhaps in an active episode of depression or a bipolar manic phase, or otherwise engaged in a serious, debilitating mental health episode. MH-5 means the person has completely lost touch with reality to the point where he is a danger to himself or to others
We have only one MH-5 in our prison. Most MH-5 individuals will be found in the state hospital. The one gentleman who is an MH-5 level inmate is in a special “Secure Social Rehabilitation Unit,” or SSRU, which is a separate program than the normal mental health programs we run. The SSRU has a large number of MH-4 level offenders, and the purpose of the SSRU is to teach basic living skills like hygiene and communication techniques to the inmates there. The SSRU is trying to get the inmates functional enough to be able to live within the normal population of the prison. I’m not involved in the SSRU.
Also, within the prison system, there is a special unit called the Enhanced Care Unit (ECU). You can think of it as the nursing home for the prison. These are offenders who have gotten old, whose health is failing, and who need special assistance in activities of daily living, i.e. mobility (confined to wheelchair), or need specialized medical equipment like oxygen tanks. This unit is full of elderly men, most of whom are barely mobile. I’ve been asked to work within this unit with these men, in addition to the 81 guys on my normal caseload. The ECU raises interesting moral questions for me about the nature of our justice system. The men in this unit would probably be confined to a nursing home if they were not in prison, or perhaps be living with a family member because their medical needs would keep them from being active in society. I philosophically believe that the purpose of prison is to protect society against those who would violate the rights of others. The men in the ECU have committed heinous crimes. Some of them committed their crimes at a young age, and have been in prison 30, 40 or maybe even 50 years. Some of them committed their crimes at an older age. I’m currently working with a guy in the ECU who did not go to prison until he was 57 years old. These men pose no threat to society at this time. Why do we keep them incarcerated? There is a fine line between justice and revenge.
The majority of my normal caseload is MH-3 level inmates. There are those on my caseload who have legitimate mental health needs. There are also those on my caseload who have figured out that in prison, drugs are currency. These men claim to have mental health problems, and have spoken loud enough and long enough that they have gotten to see a doctor. They are now being prescribed medications, which they “cheek.” This means when they present to take their medications, they will put the pills in their mouth, but not swallow them. When they leave the medication area, they spit them out and store them to sell to other inmates. The problem is, a fairly intelligent individual with a little time on his hands could study mental illness enough to be able to say the right things to get a diagnosis. In prison, you have a community of some highly intelligent individuals with a lot of time on their hands. They figure out quickly how to work the system. But, as Mad Eye Moody said when discussing the Imperius Curse, “How do you sort out the liars?”
There is a gut feeling I get when I think someone is lying about their mental health condition. The litigious nature of medical care and the litigious nature of inmates in prison (a lot of time on their hands with nothing to do but sue people), however, conspire together to make us at times more interested in covering ourselves from liability than challenging criminal behavior. If someone isn’t lying, but my gut feeling says he is, I can set myself up for an awful lot of trouble.
The other piece of this is a lesson I actually learned from Nathaniel. Nathaniel has a distinct advantage over me when he and I go toe-to-toe on something. He’s not afraid that he’s going to get hurt. This is the same advantage that inmates in the prison have over us. They’re not afraid of hurting or even killing themselves to make a point. If someone claims he is suicidal for secondary gain (claiming to be suicidal, not because he actually is, but because he wants something else), and we know this, we will not call his bluff. The reason is because most inmates are not afraid of hurting themselves to prove us wrong. In other words, if someone claims to be suicidal for secondary gain, and I call his bluff and send him back to his cell, he will break his own arm or fall backwards off his sink causing a possible head injury or tie his sheet around his neck and secure the other end to cut off his oxygen, just to show me that he’s willing to go further to get his perceived need met than I am to address his criminal behavior.
Then you have the guys who legitimately are suicidal. They’ve lost hope. They’ve lost purpose. They don’t care anymore. So we treat all these criminals as if they are telling the truth, because some of them are.
In JCCC, there’s another classification according to housing unit. Houses 1-5 are what are known as the General Population houses (GP). These houses are divided sort of…more or less…according to the level of threat the inmates pose in terms of becoming violent. For example, the ECU that I discussed above is in Housing Unit (HU) 1. These guys aren’t young enough, spry enough, or healthy enough to become violent. It sort of goes up from there. HU 5 is the exception, which contains the Intensive Therapeutic Community (ITC) program. Wow. Different world from the rest of the prison. These guys are intense about challenging each other to become better people. I can tell the difference within the first 5 minutes of talking with an inmate whether he has been through the ITC program or not. I would trust an ITC graduate to babysit my kids. Well, some of them. The drug addicts and murderers I would, but probably not the child molesters.
HU 6, 7 and 8 are what are known as the “adseg” units. That’s Administrative Segregation. These guys are violent. They’ve gotten a bunch of minor conduct violations or have gotten a major violation and are now segregated. This is “the hole.” HU 6 are the guys who are getting ready to get back into GP. They’ve gotten most of their privileges back, and have gone a significant amount of time without further violations. HU 7 are the hard cases in adseg. They have no privileges. They are in their cells 23 and a half hours of the day, most with a cell mate, with no TV, no radio, nothing but a pen and a piece of paper a day to keep themselves occupied. They eat, sleep, exercise, and do everything else in their cell. HU 8 are those guys who are such a danger that they can’t even have a cell mate. They are completely isolated because they will hurt whoever they are around.
Two-thirds of my 81 guys on my caseload are in HU 6, 7 and 8. That’s where I spend the majority of my work week. Good times. Yeah.
What makes it worth it? I go back to what I wrote in a previous blog. The relationship is the key. Being present in the life of someone who has been so wounded that lying and manipulation is first nature to the person can be difficult at days. In that rare moment when someone realizes that there are other ways to go about life, I see the value of my work. I was reminded this week while working with 2 gentlemen who were sentenced to multiple life terms without possibility of parole of how important hope is. These 2 men know they will die within the gray concrete walls of the prison. They have both lost hope. They both asked me the question, “What was the purpose of my life?” Notice they said, “was”, not “is.” They referred to themselves in the past tense. They had lost sight of any bigger hand or greater plan beyond the gray walls of “the camp.” It was sad, sad, sad to be in the room with them. Helping them develop a sense of hope and a sense of purpose is an intimidating thought to me.
I believe, though, that’s the very purpose of this “therapeutic” relationship. That’s where the challenge and the reward come. I believe that’s the mud into which Jesus wants me to wade. I believe in hope. I believe in purpose, even within the gray walls of JCCC. I believe in these men.
Yes, I believe even these men, who have done horrible things,
have inherent dignity and purpose. These men have done horrible things, but I
believe that God’s image is within them. Faith is the conviction of the reality
of that for which we hope, and the belief in the reality of those things we
cannot see (Hebrews 11:1). I guess I
have faith in God’s image in these men.
I believe that even these men can become the beautiful
creatures God intended all humanity to be.
I believe in God.
So I believe in Man.
So I believe in these in these men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
