Logic Times

Meaningless Abu Ghraib

Posted by Aslan, 02/14/05, 7:51pm.  Comments (0)

While the abuse at Abu Ghraib was both illegal and immoral, it was not significant.  The theft of an elderly woman’s purse in Central Park is illegal and immoral, and at about the same level of significance. Actually, such a purse-snatching is probably a more serious moral issue due to the woman’s innocence.  

Societies take great pains to quantify crime and punishment.  Crimes fit into a hierarchy as measured by the consequences, which have their definition in the penal code:  

§ 12.02.  CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES.  Offenses are designated as felonies or misdemeanors.

 

§ 12.03.  CLASSIFICATION OF MISDEMEANORS.  

   (a)  Misdemeanors are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into three categories:

        (1)  Class A misdemeanors;

        (2)  Class B misdemeanors;

        (3)  Class C misdemeanors.

   (b)  An offense designated a misdemeanor in this code without specification as to punishment or category is a Class C misdemeanor.

   (c)  Conviction of a Class C misdemeanor does not impose any legal disability or disadvantage.

 

§ 12.04.  CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES.  

   (a)  Felonies are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into five categories:

        (1)  capital felonies;

        (2)  felonies of the first degree;

        (3)  felonies of the second degree;

        (4)  felonies of the third degree; and

        (5)  state jail felonies.

   (b)  An offense designated a felony in this code without specification as to category is a state jail felony.

Above is a typical state penal code (Texas).  Consider the sentencing guidelines:

§ 12.31.  CAPITAL FELONY.  

   (a)  An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state seeks the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or by death.  An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life.

   (b)  In a capital felony trial in which the state seeks the death penalty, prospective jurors shall be informed that a sentence of life imprisonment or death is mandatory on conviction of a capital felony.  In a capital felony trial in which the state does not seek the death penalty, prospective jurors shall be informed that the state is not seeking the death penalty and that a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction of the capital felony.

 

§ 12.32.  FIRST DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.  

   (a)  An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years.  

   (b)  In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

 

§ 12.33.  SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.  

   (a)  An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

   (b)  In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

 

§ 12.34.  THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.  

   (a)  An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.

   (b)  In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

Why do we differentiate between felonies and misdemeanors, between murder and theft, between terrorism and jaywalking?  The obvious answer is that society holds certain behavior to be more undesirable, more threatening to the social order and more immoral than other behavior.  And law enforcement personnel and civilians understandably react differently to various criminal behaviors. Jaywalking does not bring out SWAT teams and low-flying television helicopters. September 11th ignites a war.

Abu Ghraib, if condoned government policy, had the potential to be a scandal, more alarming because of the hypocritical violation of American moral tradition than because of any violation of human rights. Instead, Abu Ghraib has proven to be the aberrant criminal behavior of a few employees of the United States Government, and, as a result, certainly does not deserve excessive attention.

Consider the story in the following context: the 2000 census projects that there were about 291,000,000 people in the United States the year Abu Ghraib entered onto the national scene, a year that saw 559,000 assaults here on domestic soil (data here and here).  In 2004, there were about 2,000,000 federal employees.  If we assume that a federal employee is as likely as anyone else to commit a crime, we can conclude that roughly 3840 federal employees committed some form of assault in 2004.  Do you recall seeing hundreds of newspaper stories above the fold on violent IRS employees or gangs of post office workers?  Of course not, because there is no political advantage in such stories.

This analysis is, of course, naive and simplistic, but it puts into perspective the suffocating bias that dominates the media in this country.  To make a minor crime – vastly less tragic than any of the 14,000 murders that took place during the same year – the number one non-election story in 2004 is a crime in and of itself; an ethical crime of far greater consequence than Abu Ghraib.

Copyright ©  2005 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.