The concept of the criminal justice system doesn’t really come up until something really shitty happens in the news, and then people freak out about how criminal X isn’t getting nearly as lengthy a prison sentence as having committed crime Y deserves. Justice was not served, and our weak judicial system lets another monster go with a wrist slap. I want to examine what a criminal justice system would look like if justice were to truly be served, so that next time there is a trial on the news, we can bitch and moan about its outcome in a more appropriate fashion.

Now, Socrates would immediately demand that I define justice, and then mock me for whatever answer I provide. However, provide one I must in order to progress in my analysis of the criminal justice system because otherwise this whole ordeal is pointless. Typically we attribute punishing wrong-doers as justice, but we must make the distinction between justice and vengeance.  An eye for an eye cannot balance the scales of justice as the repetition of an act can only weigh down the one side further. The other issue with punishment as justice is that it cannot rescind an action. If someone gets killed, they’re not going to be brought back by any means human beings can muster. Justice cannot be a return to balance because the world-state has been irrevocably changed. Of course, leaving the action with an apathetic shrug is out of the question as well, so I posit that justice is the prevention of further acts of injustice. The scales are tipped in a future world where unjust acts are committed with less frequency. Justice is not a return to balance, but the creation of it.

Now that the philosophy is done, we can return to our criminal justice system. Traditionally there are three ways that are followed in the pursuit of justice: punishment, incarceration, and rehabilitation. I will look at each of these on their merits and decide which one best suits my definition of justice. I’ve already decided, by the way. I am not writing this blindly. You’ll just have to keep reading to see which one I pick. Or skip to the end, I suppose. I can’t stop you.

We discussed punishment as being a flawed method of justice all of two paragraphs ago, but it must be revisited again as there are those that claim that punishment works as a deterrent, preventing future crime by disincentivizing potential criminals from committing nefarious deeds. No one wants to get punished; it sucks. Society seems to take a somewhat jovial attitude toward prison rape because it only adds to the deterrent factor of punishment. Punishment as prevention seemed to be solidified into fact in the 1970s when Isaac Ehrlich, an economist, concluded that rehabilitation could never work and that murdering criminals was the only way to stop crime. This was actually a huge deal, and this deterrent factor became so mainstream we are still dealing with people who insist that murder solves murder. Unfortunately, economists study money, and human motivations do in fact exist outside of that jurisdiction from time to time, and punishment as a deterrent has been largely rebuked, with 88% of people who study crime instead of dollars agreeing that the death penalty does not in fact disincentivize people from committing crime.

So since punishment won’t stop future crime, we now come to incarceration. This idea is that if someone is locked up, they can’t be out in civilized society getting their crimes up in everyone’s business. I cannot argue with this. If someone is in jail, they can’t be out criming with their buddies. However, decency seems to dictate that we should probably eventually let people out of prison. The “worth” of someone’s crime is calculated in how many times the earth rotates around the sun, somehow, and this is used to arbitrarily decide how long someone should not be out criming. How many years of your life is worth stealing a car? It’s an absurd question to ask, but that’s the question we pose to judges and juries every day of their working lives. Apples are much more similar to oranges, so combining an act with a time-frame is just a guessing game based on precedent and circumstance. And ultimately, the person will leave jail, quite possibly to commit further crimes. Prisons are unsurprisingly filled with villainous individuals, and being surrounded by that kind of culture might even worsen anyone who spends any amount of time there. If releasing someone from prison is more often than not going to lead to recidivism, than releasing someone from prison does not actually lead to justice within my definition. To prevent future crime, people who are convicted would need to stay in prison indefinitely. Of course, if everyone is convicted of a life sentence no matter the crime, you might as well just kill them from the get-go. Not to disincentivize other criminals, but simply to save time. They are going to be removed forever from society, and we already seem content with an arbitrary measurement of the worth of their lives, so where they go does not matter.

This probably sounds horrible, but we must remain objective in our discussion of justice because the story goes that it is blind. Nobody can commit a crime from beyond the grave (…yet), so it has to be taken into consideration when we are looking for the proper execution of justice.

We’ve come up with one just solution, but we have one more option remaining: rehabilitation. If we can convince someone that crime is bad, or get them to a place in their lives where crime is less of an option, then that would certainly prevent future crime.  This would eliminate the arbitrary nature of gauging the worth of an action in years, as it would become a simple matter of when the person would be ready to integrate back into society. For those incorrigible rapscallions who will forever be unrepentant about their transgressions that are so often the poster children of death penalty supporters, they would simply remain in prison until they die simply because they would never conform to acceptable standards of society. But for everyone else, how about instead of just holding on to rapists for a bit before letting them go, for example, we teach them a gender studies class or something so that they learn that maybe rape isn’t such a nice thing to do? Once they get the idea, they can leave. Maybe it takes one year, maybe it takes twenty, but it would be entirely dependent on the individual.

Now, some might say that those dastardly criminals might pull the wool over everyone’s eyes and convince people that they’re totally cool and should go back into society. Admittedly, they might with their brilliant criminal wiles, but they also have the potential to do that now. We have parole hearings to decide literally that, and this is within a system where very little effort is made to address rehabilitation, so their readiness for society would be due to pure chance rather than any particular effort of the justice system. This way, a team consisting of maybe a social worker, a variety of counselors, prison staff, etc. would provide testimony about the rehabilitation status of any given inmate and would deliver consensus on that person’s ability to conform to social standards, thus preventing future crime.

So we have two options for an appropriate delivery of justice: rehabilitation or death. Next time someone complains that a guy who seems to keep stealing cars “only” got a two year jail sentence after several priors (or however long, I’m not a lawyer), you can ask what kind of steps are being taken within those two years to actually address this vehicular kleptomancy and whether that is an adequate enough time to properly deliver those services to this individual, or casually suggest the perpetrator’s death.

You wanna hear something fucked up? “In the UK about 84% of all recorded crime is by men; about 97% of those in prison are men; a quarter of all men are convicted of an offence by the age of 25; and two-thirds of all male offenders are under 30” (Hearn, 1999, p. 4). On top of this, in the United States and Europe, 85-100% of assaults and 90% of murders are committed by men (Ruby, 2004). This isn’t just men bashing women either, as men are reporting assaults 12 times more than women (Hearn, 1999). Now some of you are probably thinking that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this; like maybe all these dudes collectively lost a bet on the Super Bowl and immediately flipped their shit and just started murdering and assaulting everyone around them. If you spoke to these men, they would tell you that they were justified in physically exerting their rights to correct a misdeed, or that they lost control of their mind or body, or that an anger exists inside them that caused them to lash out, and the odd one will occasionally admit to just being an asshole. Most of these men might not even believe their actions to be violent at all, as pushing, holding, blocking, throwing things, etc. are not often considered ‘violence’, nor is it violence if it fails to leave a mark (Hearn, 1999). I assume those doing the murders figured it out eventually, however.

Now, my online medical degree is in the mail and has yet to be delivered, but I still feel comfortable enough with these statistics to suggest that there is a small possibility that a link exists between men and violence. Call it a hunch. There are two gut responses to men and violence, and the first is that there are women who commit violence and there are men who don’t, so clearly it can’t be related to gender and ignoring empirical statistics is the soundest scientific method to further social advancement. The other response is that violence is inherent to being male. After all, boys will be boys, and if half the population is biologically predetermined to kill everyone around him given half a chance, well I guess we’ll just have to learn to live with it (Ruby, 2004).

To see if all men are actually going to be shitty human beings regardless of how nice they look in a suit or how charmingly British their accent might be, we should probably look at more statistics since we gave up on being morons after abandoning our first gut reaction. Most of you know that people frequently carry baggage, such as the attitudes, skills, and behaviors of the workplace, home from work, and if you don’t, I have scholarly research backing it up (Melzer, 2000). Not so surprisingly then, those who work in violent professions, such as police officers, correction officers, or military personnel, are 43% more likely to be violent toward their partners than comparable men in white collar jobs (Melzer, 2000). In these professions, violence is used as a resource to exert control over others, command respect, demonstrate power, and instill fear. Maybe it’s not so bad when it’s bad guys suffering authoritarian brutality because black and white morality is totally a real thing between good guys and bad guys, but when it’s brought back into the home is when shit gets real.

However, violent work is not the only thing that begets violent men. Those pesky statistics show that men who work in traditionally female dominated work are also more prone to commit domestic abuse (Melzer, 2000). If it was just violent work then we could argue that violent work is just a draw for violent people, and be done with this whole blog post and never give it another thought. But something about being surrounded by a predominantly female workforce is apparently enough to drive the occasional male employee nuts. As hilarious as a sexist joke about menstruation would be right about now, the truth that this Melzer person I’ve been citing for the last couple paragraphs tells us is that “blocked attempts to affirm masculinity at work may also lead some men to act more aggressively and assert their dominance at home via intimate violence” (2000, p. 823). Essentially what this means is that if a man is routinely teased about doing things inappropriate for his gender, he is more likely to try to compensate by beating the shit out of somebody; in this example, his wife.

In order for this to make any kind of sense, there would need to be a culture that exists on the macro level that teaches men that violence is a part of masculinity. How we form our gender identity is based on our gained knowledge of gender-typed traits, activities, occupations, and attitudes (Mayes, 2000). For masculinity, when we see advertising that has a powerfully built muscle man as the representation of some new technology and some slob with a dad-bod representing the obsolete model, or listen to a narrator describing a truck with the traditional gravelly voice declaring how it ‘outmuscles’ the competition, or how our status as men in linked to sexual prowess in cologne commercials, we absorb this information and catalogue it as ‘masculine’ (Mayes, 2000).  Male role models, the quintessential man, can be identified by a long series of masculine-oriented media performances: “a collection of rogue cops, vigilantes, and glorified psychopaths who see a broken world of bureaucracy and inefficiency and unfairness around them and decide to take matters into their own hands” (Earp, 2013).

Men who exist in entirely male environments such as sports teams or fraternities were studied to see what kind of rambunctious, Blue Mountain Sate-esque shenanigans they would get up to. What they found out instead was that homosocial groups tend to label outsiders, or even members who do not conform to behavioural expectations, as threats or at least oppositional to the standard way of life (Melzer, 2000). This means that the men who do not project masculine traits such as power, strength, and sexual prowess will be ostracized by male culture, and will therefore lose a significant portion of their identity.

A psychiatrist named James Gilligan interviewed hundreds of violent criminals and discovered that the single greatest contributor to violence was having been shamed, humiliated, or disrespected as men. Seung-Hui Cho, or more commonly, the Virginia Tech Massacre guy, wanted to rewrite the script of his life and portray himself in the manly starring role (Earp, 2013) The Columbine shooters were outsiders, bullied and victimized by those in the ‘jock’ culture, and retaliated by utilizing the ultimate metaphor for manliness: guns (Ericsson, Talreja, & Jhally, 1999).

William Pollack introduced the idea of a ‘boy code’ wherein young males will be conditioned to act tough and not show their feelings (Earp, 2013). This ‘boy code’ has been extended by others to encompass the entirety of a lifetime. The ‘boy code,’ or I’ve also seen it referred to as the ‘man box’, emphasizes the restrictions masculine culture enforces on those born with a penis. Emotions are limited to anger, stoicism, and apathy; backing down is not an option; toughness regarding taking and dealing pain is required; women are meant as sexual conquest. All these conditions must be met out of fear of being labelled as outside masculine culture: weak, feminine, or gay (Earp, 2013).

What we learn about this is that being manly is a performance; a projection of what masculine culture expects from men and each must play his part. But unlike a theatre geek getting their first opportunity to star in The Wiz, men do not masquerade their performance of masculinity out of sheer fabulous delight, but rather because it is a survival mechanism. Men must be “Men” in order endure their day to day life. If you’re a male reader, I want you to answer these few questions: How do you define “being a man”? What aspects of yourself fall under that umbrella, and which do not? How do you portray the “manly” aspects of yourself compared to how you portray those outside of it?

There are plenty of reasons for men to be violent outside of male culture; poverty, mental illness, addiction, and abusive childhoods all statistically lead to an increase in violent behaviour. Yet poverty in women does not lead to as great an increase in violence, and so it is more likely that the outside expectation of the male to be the provider adds further stressors that exacerbate the violence brought on by those same expectations (Melzer, 2000). Similarly, girls who grow up in abusive homes are far less likely than boys who grow up in abusive homes to continue the vicious cycle as abuse is typically expressed as male domination instead of generalized violence (Hearn, 1999). In addition to more men with mental illness committing violence, therapist Terry Real examines what he calls ‘covert depression’, from which he estimates that approximately three quarters of the American male population suffer, which is mental anguish and instability that goes unchecked due to the man’s desire to appear independent and tough leading to an abhorrence for professional help which can only worsen its consequences (Earp, 2013). Recklessness has also become attributed to masculine toughness, and men represent 76% of binge drinkers, outnumber women in addiction, and make up 86% of drinking and driving related car accidents (Ericsson, Talreja, & Jhally, 1999). Even the increase of violence and posturing among racial minorities can be linked to a hyper-masculinity adopted to signify the retention of manhood in the face of everything else that has been stripped away (Earp, 2013). What this means is that regardless of the indicator, be it poverty, mental illness, or otherwise, young men grow up in a culture that normalizes violent masculinity.

As flashy as violence is as a cultural phenomenon within masculinity, I think the more important issue to understand is how this culture affects men on a day to day basis. Everyone knows that most men do not commit violence, but all men are exposed to the culture of masculinity. Men are taught that compassion is a virtue, and yet somehow that domination through violence is natural. Men are taught to respect women, but also that caring for them, or treating them as anything other than a trophy to be bragged about, is not manly. There is an incredible conflict that must be juggled within masculinity that causes anxiety for those who are socially compelled to exude it. Being unable to express oneself to their full capability is incredibly isolating, and just over half of men polled in the UK say they have two or fewer people with whom they could talk about serious issues, and an eighth said they had no one at all, with married men having fewer intimate friendships than their single counterparts. The dizzying number of men who commit suicide is a visceral reminder of that isolation (Bingham, 2015).

Here’s another thought experiment: you know that guy with the popped collar and sideburns who hits on a girl at the bar and won’t leave her alone no matter what she says, unless she says she has a boyfriend? I’ve seen some remarks about how a man won’t listen to a woman but will respect that she is the property of another as a means of explaining this hostile and disrespectful behaviour. However, if a man approaches a woman with all the baggage of masculinity weighing on his shoulders, and she refuses him, he has essentially failed as a man. Rather than abandon the greater part of his identity, he persists. Having the ‘out’ of a boyfriend isn’t necessarily respecting another man over a woman, but a way for him to salvage his masculinity because the failure was out of his hands.

Recognizing the influence of masculine culture does not excuse the behaviour of those who take it to its extreme, but it does illuminate that those violent or sexual psychopaths we deem as deranged individuals or deviants from the social norm are actually over-conforming to the ideals of manhood out of fear of not being seen as men (Earp, 2013). The thing is, it’s getting worse. The brutality of celebrated men is increasing. Superman and Batman both started out as dumpy George Reeves and Lewis G. Wilson. Today, they are hulking behemoths. I’m pretty sure Batman now is bigger than what Bane would have been hosed-up on Venom in the 1940s (Yes I know Bane didn’t show up until 1993; it’s a joke, get over it). Another example is the expanding mass of GI Joe’s biceps. The action figure in 1964 would have the real-world equivalent of arms 12.2 inches in diameter. In 1974 it was 15.2 inches. In 1998, GI Joe’s arms grew bigger than the Grinch’s cold, dead heart to be an astounding 26.8 inches. If you don’t know what that looks like (because why the fuck would you) then think of Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, celebrated People’s Champion, who has biceps that are 20 inches in diameter (Earp, 2013).

Another problem is a complete lack of support. Women who suffer violence have an average contact with 11 different agencies, whereas the men who commit it really only have jail (Hearn, 1999). There are Band-Aid solutions, like getting men to create “cost-benefit analysis (of the gains and consequences of violent and abusive behaviour), safety plans (strategies for avoiding violence and abuse), and control logs (diary records of attempts to control partners)” (Hearn, 1999, p. 14), but in order for real change to take place we must “focus instead on all the different ways that we as a society are constructing violent masculinity as a cultural norm, not as something unusual or unexpected, but as one of the ways that boys become men” (Ericsson, Talreja, & Jhally, 1999).

A common solution is that we should identify the gender of the perpetrator rather than the victim in media reports to create a dialogue centred on the root of the issue rather than the symptom (Ruby, 2004), but that ignores the social conditions that lead to violent men and can only begin with an accusation rather than an understanding. I think one of the more important solutions that I’ve seen in regard to this issue is that we need to redefine courage (Ericsson, Talreja, & Jhally, 1999). Completely eradicating all common traits of masculinity, its toughness, its power, etc. is impossible as a first step, but if we take the masculine attribute of courage and define it as standing up for what’s right when harassment or bullying is taking place, or being something outside of the norm and being it proudly, we can cut down on the negative aspects that come from masculine culture in a much more positive way.

References:

Bingham, J. (2015, Nov. 14). 2.5 million men have no close friends: Stark new research shows chances of friendlessness trebles by late middle age. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11996473/2.5-million-men-have-no-close-friends.html

Earp, J. (Producer, Director). (2013). Tough Guise 2: Violence, manhood & American culture [Motion picture]. United States: Media Education Foundation.

Ericsson, S., Talreja, S. (Producers). Jhally, S. (Director). (1999). Tough Guise: Violence, media & the crisis in masculinity. [Motion picture]. United States: Media Education Foundation.

Hearn, J. (Jun., 1999). The violences of men: Men doing, talking and responding to violence against known women. GenDerations, 7th International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women. Retrieved from http://www.eruoprofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/Hearn_Jeff2.pdf

Mayes, E. (2000). The study of the construction of white masculinity in advertising in multicultural education. Couterpoints, 73, 144 – 149. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42976126

Melzer, S. (Nov., 2002). Gender, work, and intimate violence: Men’s occupational violence spillover and compensatory violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 820 – 832. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3599985.

Ruby, J. (Sep.-Oct., 2004). Male-pattern violence. Off Our Backs, 34(9/10), 21-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20838166

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, and carries the scorpion across. Nothing happens, because when we anthropomorphize creatures to create moralizing fables we project into them the values we as the author wish to express, and not an analysis of actual reality.