Why is respectability given so much import? There is a stigma associated with being human, but it is only attached to those who are caught being human. Why are we unable to acknowledge our shared humanness? Some who believe they have nothing to be ashamed of or nothing to be embarrassed about are delusional; and the rest are by far, far more lucky than good. There is no difference between the (approximately) 20 million convicted felons in the United States and the (likely) 20 million plus others who have committed felonies – except that the individual humans in one subset were caught and the individual humans in the other subset (were not and) are free of any associated stigma; and there are a plethora of prescribed blemishes that mark and follow the publicly disgraced evildoer for the entirety of their life. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between this 20 million and that 20 (or 40 or 60 or 150) million except for the difference between good and bad luck; the difference between being born here and being born there; the difference between being born into money and not; the difference between being born with this skin color and being born with that skin color; the difference between pretentious delusion and unwarranted shame.

Furthermore…

Those who are convicted or marked or guilty by association are held to a higher standard than those who are lucky. Blacks are held to a higher standard than whites. The working poor are held to a higher standard than the comfortably affluent. Foreign born immigrants are held to a higher standard than native born citizens. Single Moms are held to a higher standard than Soccer Moms. A higher level of respectability is required to be accepted as something other than a criminal, or a deadbeat, or a terrorist, or a slut. Yet research and statistics and reasoned thought continue to show there are no more criminals or deadbeats or terrorists or sluts amongst those convicted and marked and guilty by association than there are amongst the general population. Labels are utilized to keep certain people in their place and to maintain the status quo.

It is beyond difficult to hold up a convicted felon as a victim of racial profiling; as an example deserving empathy; as an individual human no better and no worse than the millions of sons and daughters who also made mistakes in their youth but went on to college instead of prison. He's a convicted felon! He's a criminal! He made his choices! He deserves what he got! Right? WRONG! Unless we are willing to stigmatize and withhold jobs from and deny housing for and disenfranchise an additional 20 or 40 or 60 or 150 million people, what we have done is wrong! And the only reason his punishment is so far out of whack, so disproportionate to his crime, is because he was unlucky.

In March 1955 a fifteen year old black girl was considered for a role and rejected because she became pregnant. In October 1955 an eighteen year old black girl was considered for the same role and rejected because her father was rumored to be an alcoholic. In December 1955 Rosa Parks was arrested for the same crime as Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith: for not giving up her seat to a white person on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Rosa Parks was chosen by civil rights advocates as the perfect symbol because her character was impeccable. Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith were unable to meet the standard required to ensure empathy for a victim, though each was indeed every bit the victim (and the hero) that we saw in Rosa Parks. Today we continue to hold blacks to a higher standard, both those convicted and marked, and those guilty by association. Today we continue to withhold empathy until we know a victim is of impeccable character.

In the past few years there has been considerable concern surrounding racial profiling and police shootings. And because of this some have come around to see the disproportionate and unreasonable nature of our policing methods. Very recently a young black woman in Texas was shot and killed inside her home by an officer who was outside her home in the dark, and who did not identify himself. The first thing the police did after the shooting was to post (online) a picture of a gun found inside the home. If I am not mistaken it is still legal for a person to have a gun for protection. Yet the implication tried to be that this young (now dead) black woman brought this upon herself. By posting a picture of her gun the police tried to impugn her character thus robbing her of empathy. In this case their tactic failed. The police officer has been charged with murder. This is some small progress. Only small progress because it is not too difficult to find empathy for a young, college-educated black woman who gets shot, dead, inside her home, playing video games with her nephew. The only reason this result is so far out of whack, so disproportionate to the circumstance, is because she was unlucky. If your memory is short, the same reasoning applies to the convicted felon two paragraphs above. Bigger progress would be to also find some empathy for the convicted felon by recognizing these fear-mongering, strong-arm tactics for what they are; (i.e. fear-mongering, strong-arm tactics). Bigger progress would be to first see then begin dismantling the structure that overtly encourages targeting certain groups thereby increasing the likelihood of circumstance that favors police shootings. Explicit or implicit bias and profiling directly lead to unnecessary police shootings. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Our insistence on higher standards of respectability serves our lack of empathy which serves the status quo which serves bias and profiling. If excessive police force and unnecessary police shootings are wrong then targeting and profiling (leading to mass incarceration) is wrong.

Both per capita and raw numbers show the prison population in the United States exceeds that of every nation in the world including Russia, China, Brazil, Ukraine and El Salvador. Many countries have found alternatives to prison such as drug treatment programs and facilities, education, work programs, and not targeting and profiling certain groups. And many of these programs would cost less than the maintenance and upkeep of prisons and prisoners. But our entire criminal justice system is so massive, and some elements (like many prisons) now privatized, that there will be (and has been) a tremendous amount of pushback against even suggesting a dismantling and reworking of what we have come to accept as normal.

Again, I don't know how many ways to say it. If shooting an innocent black woman in her home is wrong, then mass incarceration is wrong. The dots connect. And until we dismantle the system there will continue to be excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary, unjustified, disproportionate punishments brought down upon those who are convicted and marked, and upon those who are merely guilty by association; punishments ranging from unreasonable standards demanding impeccable character to being marked for life unable to find reasonable work or housing to being shot dead in your own home.

As a nation we have plenty to be ashamed of. As a nation we are a disgrace.