Your backyard is a problem

I wanted to keep this to a simple comment on Greg's post, but as I went on about recidivism, I realized my comment was getting to be a small novella. As such, here's my rant on the corrections system.

First of all, I feel like I should define what I want out of a good corrections system. If you think that the only purpose of a jail should be to lock people away as punishment for breaking the law, that's one thing. Then sure, let jails and prisons be overcrowded with petty offenders. Let the system take them out of their homes and communities, their jobs and activities so that they can sit around pointlessly for a while. Let them make better connections in prisons so they can have something more "profitable" when they get back out. Please, create the next crime they're almost sure to commit.

Why is recidivism so common? Because the resources that those people need aren't provided to them. An addict is probably still an addict when he/she gets out of jail if the state chose not to spend the resources on him/her. The guy who was so down and out when he was caught the first time is no better by the time he gets out of jail if the system is no more than a long term holding tank.

A big problem comes from society's attitudes toward the people who commit crimes. Some of them surely need to be locked away for the protection of the community as a whole, but most of them don't. The harmless ones in for a long time due to the genius that was the 3 Strikes Law are only going to be more of a problem when they get out, bitter, denied education or work, the normal things that raise self esteem and break the cycle that they're in.

The problem is that the corrections system doesn't have much of a choice but to keep putting these people back out there. Know why? 'Cause we don't want them. The smartest, most economical option is to create things called halfway houses, staffed minimally by a few officers and counselors to help people get back on their feet. They get job hunt help, go out and set their lives back up in a manner which most of us would find acceptable. Halfway houses are proven.

But they drive down property values.
But most people don't want former convicts anywhere near them.
Apparently they'd rather pay for their stay in jail then their rehabilitation.

To prevent recidivism, you need resources going to people's re-education. They need the skills to create security for themselves that they used to find in crime. They need a place to go until those skills are developed. But if society won't provide for them, they certainly won't make life any easier for it.

/endrant
Commend this post to Digg.

Kwame, Eliot, and Getting What You Pay for

photograph by Cave Canem

I hate how liberal I'm going to sound when I say this, but America needs to get over its prostitution hang-up.

The reason I've ended up at this conclusion is Kwame Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick is the disgraced mayor of Detroit, who, so far as we know, did not have sex with any prostitutes. What he did do was have an extramarital affair with his chief of staff, Christine Beatty (and, it has been alleged in court, at least three other women, in addition to throwing stripper parties at the city-owned mayoral residence). He then allegedly had fired, and thus ruined the careers of, those policemen investigating both his misconduct and abuses by his security team. When those officers fought back and won a Whistleblower Protection Act lawsuit against the city worth $6.5 million in damages, Kilpatrick (who is black) publicly pulled the race card and vowed to appeal. But in the end, he quietly offered a settlement of $8.4 million.

If that sudden change of heart doesn't make sense to you, it's because, as The Detroit Free Press discovered, the $8.4 million settlement included a secret deal in which all parties agreed to hide the existence of incriminating text messages between Kilpatrick and Beatty. In other words, Kilpatrick tried to spend $8.4 million in taxpayer money to cover up an affair. (Well, one could say that the $6.5 million was for the illegal firings - which, remember, he was allegedly responsible for in the first place - and the extra $2.1 million in taxpayer money to be the actual price of silence.)

I first heard about this when Slate ran some of the text messages on its website almost two months ago. Unbelievably, Kilpatrick is still mayor, despite being indicted on Monday with eight felonies, including perjury. The media coverage has been widespread, but certainly not scandalous. There's none of the national moral outrage that was so fervent just two weeks ago.

Eliot Spitzer had sex with prostitutes.

That's Why They Play the Games

Speaking of things that matter, tonight is actually the official beginning of the 2008 Major League Baseball season as the defending World Champion Boston Red Sox face off against the Oakland A’s in Japan (game time: 3:05 AM, thanks MLB). I’m a huge baseball fan and I am ready for this season. Got my fantasy team ready to play, got my games ready to watch, and got my $20 ready to park in (and subsequently wait two hours to get out of) the hell that is the Dodger Stadium parking lot.

However, with baseball season kind of officially here, one must prepare for the onslaught of preseason media coverage devoted to every aspect of almost every team (sorry Nationals, there’s just nothing to cover) from “expert analysts” all over the country. This includes “expert” preseason picks. Now, I used to be a big fan of expert analysts; I would dedicate my limited attention to shows like Pardon the Interruption, Around the Horn, and the talking segments on Sportscenter. Then one day it hit me: these expert analysts are always wrong. Not just sometimes, but always. I mean, occasionally one or two will be right, but really it’s no more likely than the average baseball fan making his prediction or an average person off the street randomly guessing. On this note, I figured we might as well take a trip down memory lane and analyze the preseason predictions of ESPN’s expert team of expert analysts to see how they did (after all, ESPN is the worldwide leader in sports). The data analyzed will be ESPN’s panel of predictions from 2002-2007, with the exception of 2004 for which the data doesn’t appear to exist (although, I think it's fair to say that not too many analysts had the Boston Red Sox winning their first World Series title in 86 years). The main focus will be on experts picking the correct World Series teams, MVP’s, and Cy Young’s (best teams, best players, best pitchers) Don’t worry, kudos will be given for the few correct, often very simple, picks.

We’ll start with 2002 when my beloved Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (then referred to by the simpler and far more accurate Anaheim Angels) won the World Series over the San Francisco Giants. Naturally, 0 of the 18 ESPN expert panelists had the Angels making the playoffs that year; only 2 had them finishing out of last place in the West. While 13 of the 18 had the Giants making the playoffs (although only 1 of those accurately picked them to win the Wild Card), 0 had them reaching the World Series. Even worse were their MVP picks: eventual American League MVP Miguel Tejada received all of 0 preseason votes (even Christian Guzman got a vote!), while reigning and eventual National League MVP Barry Bonds (coming off one of the best seasons of ALL TIME) received just 2. While a solid 6 correctly picked Randy Johnson to win the NL Cy Young, 0 experts picked Barry Zito to win the AL Cy Young.

I guess ESPN had a look over their 2002 predictions and decided the best way to improve their odds was to up the number of panelists. Hence, in 2003 we were blessed with 27 ESPN expert preseason predictions; all were terrible as expected. Not surprisingly, for the second year in a row the eventual 2003 World Series Champions, this time the Florida Marlins, received 0 out of 27 votes to even make the playoffs. Surprisingly, albeit every expert had the 2003 World Series loser New York Yankees making the playoffs (that was a gimme), only 5 of the 27 put them into the World Series (the overwhelming favorite was the Oakland A’s as this was before people realized that “moneyball” was bullshit). In what should have been a relatively easy year to pick the MVP’s in the preseason, a mediocre 10 out of 27 correctly picked Alex Rodriguez to win the AL MVP, while a comparably mediocre 9 picked Barry Bonds to win the NL MVP. Of course, 0 out of 27 correctly picked Eric Gagne to win the NL Cy Young, but 1 expert correctly picked Roy Halladay to win the AL Cy Young. Mind you, these people get paid a lot of money to make these picks.

We move on to 2005 where ESPN realized that more picks was not necessarily more accurate and slimmed their panel back down to 19. This year (holy shit!) 1 of the 19 ESPN experts actually predicted the eventual World Series Champion Chicago White Sox to make the playoffs (unfortunately this lucky expert did not have them making the World Series). Naturally, the usual 0 out of 19 experts picked the 2005 World Series loser Houston Astros to make the playoffs. In what should have again been an easy year to pick the MVP’s, a poor 6 out of 19 correctly picked Alex Rodriguez to be the AL MVP, while a slightly impressive 9 easily picked Albert Pujols to be the NL MVP. But to be fair, only 1 correctly picked Bartolo Colon to be the AL Cy Young Winner, while 0 correctly picked Chris Carpenter to win the NL Cy Young. That’s as many preseason Cy Young predictions combined (1) as Zack Greinke got; in 2005 he went 5-17 with a 5.80 ERA, but he did hit his first home run!

In 2006 ESPN decided to go with 20 expert panelists and amazingly this nice, even number gave them their best preseason picks yet! All 20 of the experts had the eventual 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals making the playoffs, 10 of those had them in the World Series, and 2 of those actually had them winning! This really shouldn’t come as that much of a surprise, as the Cardinals that year won just 83 games and are arguably the worst team to ever win the World Series. But kudos nonetheless experts! Unfortunately, the more common 0 out of 20 experts picked the World Series loser (aka World Series choker) Detroit Tigers to make the playoffs. Fortunately, to make up for their semi-accurate World Series pick, none of the experts correctly picked the NL MVP Ryan Howard or the AL MVP Justin Morneau. In addition, only 5 of the 20 experts correctly picked Johan Santana to win the AL Cy Young (how 15 picked against him I don’t know) and 0 correctly picked the NL Cy Young winner Brandon Webb.

Finally, we arrive at last season, 2007. ESPN decided to return to 18 expert panelists (the same number they had in 2002, awfully good for closure’s sake) and stuck with their generally poor preseason picks. Kudos goes to the 15 who picked the 2007 World Series Champion Boston Red Sox to make the playoffs (whatever the 3 who didn’t pick them were smoking, I want some), extra kudos to the impressive 3 who actually correctly predicted they would win the World Series (fine, mild kudos to the 1 who predicted they would make the World Series and lose). Back on track, 0 of the 18 predicted that the World Series loser Colorado Rockies would make the playoffs. On a side note, 3 experts (who hadn’t yet figured out that “moneyball” was bullshit) picked the A’s to win the AL West, they finished 18 games out of first place. Always good at making the easy pick, 10 of the 18 experts correctly picked Alex Rodriguez to win the AL MVP; always terrible at everything else, 0 correctly picked Jimmy Rollins to win the NL MVP. Not surprisingly, the 2007 Cy Young picks definitely came as a surprise to these knowledgeable experts; just 1 correctly picked NL Cy Young winner Jake Peavy and ESPN’s favorite number, 0, correctly picked the AL Cy Young Winner C.C. Sabathia.

So, if you’re one of those people that listens to baseball experts (specifically ESPN’s) preseason predictions, DON’T. How these people get paid so much money to make such poor guesses, I will never know, but I will always be jealous. Hopefully I have shown that these experts know about as much as what’s going to happen during the baseball season as any other schmuck. On that note, I will make my 2008 World Series prediction, one that pits my two lifelong favorite teams against each other: the Los Angeles Angels against the New York Mets. I have picked this World Series match up for as long as I have been a baseball fan and I’ve been wrong almost every single year. I guess that puts me in pretty good company.