Harmonize your criminal justice politics

Connect competing criminal justice views to clashing psychosocial needs

This is the sixth in a series of eight articles covering various politicized issues from the perspective of deeper needs.

Steph Turner, Value Relating

OVERVIEW

1. Divisive Politics
2. Harmony Politics
3. Defusing Polarization

There are two ways we are looking at this. Crime is too terrible, too painful for all, to keep reacting to it without solving the problem. Honestly, that goes for any politicized problem.

One way is to compare the political left with the political right, called the lateral approach. To “rationally choose” which is the best side at any given moment in history. That typically leads to mutually defensiveness divisiveness, to fewer needs being honestly addressed, and to current levels of pain persisting.

The other is to compare these guarded ideologies with their vulnerable needs, called the vertical approach. To honestly related to each other’s differing priority of needs. That opens the way to harmony, to addressing more needs honestly, and to lowering current levels of persisting pain.

Your needs and my needs are too stubborn to be ignored. As are theirs. Consider this a full-on questioning of any politics as usual. I offer this vertical approach and challenge anyone to counter with a solution of their own. A politics ignoring each other’s underlying needs is no legitimate politics at all. Let the critiquing begin!

1. Divisive Politics

The more painful the problem of crime, the more likely you generalize what we all must do for relief. You shout and argue more than listen. You complain and reject each other’s values outright than affirm each other’s underlying needs. You demand gun safety on your side’s terms more than offer what you can do to respect each other’s affected needs. Meanwhile, mass killings persist.

You argue. You rationalize your politically shared point of view. You expect others to use their free will to see how right you are. You expect your audience to see how wrong the other side. Of course, the other side argues right back.

If on the political left, you probably proclaim...

Hold police and prosecutors personally accountable for their many 
abuses of discretion, or just revamp the whole system.

If on the political right, you likely insist...

Provide police and prosecutors with better tools to serve and 
protect the public from those lacking personal responsibility.

Both sides make a point, and leave a lot out. Who is most convinced by either argument? Those already believing this way? Those painfully experiencing it, but not experiencing the other?

You reject. You denounce the other side as wrong thinking, ill-informed, manipulated by media elites, corrupted by money or other nefarious motives. They say the same about you.

If leaning politically leftward, you insist that...

Republicans too eagerly rely on one-size-fits-all police security 
to address social problems.

If leaning politically rightward, you are just as sure that...

Democrats too eagerly rely on impersonal legal answers to address 
personal problems.

Both sides sing to their respective choirs. Both sides spew their venom at each other. Polarization gets a boost from cool sounding soundbites.

You demand. You insist the other side agree to your policy fixes. You want laws written to serve your side. As if the affected needs on the other side doesn't count for much. Yet it most certainly does. The inevitable pushback easily serves as political entertainment. It draws views. It sells ads. Meanwhile, you stay in pain.

If demanding from the left, you shout out...

Stop police brutality. Fire racist cops. End criminalization of being 
addicted or mentally ill. Shut down the school-to-prison pipeline.

If demanding from the right, you shout out...

Divert non-violent offenders into faith-based alternatives. 
Keep worst offenders out of our communities. Support police.

Both sides shout past each other. Neither side honestly hears the needs beneath those sharp words. One side insists on reforming criminal justice with a few minor adjustments, while the other equally insists on transforming or even dismantling what they see as broken at its core. Are both wrong? Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes they make a law.

2. Harmony Politics

Too much arguing and rejecting and demanding overlooks what both sides bring to the table. Can’t a wide focus and deep focus complement each other? Indeed, can anything get done without both perspectives?

For example, a wider focus on criminality will consider our shared social responsibilities for socio-environmental contributors to interpersonal violence. A deeper focus looks more at individual responsibilities, or the lack thereof during outbursts of violence. There is no such thing as crime without these internal and external factors.

Ignoring one for the other ensures high levels of criminality persists. Each side brings their strong points and each side reveals their weak points. Seen through this lens of psychosocial needs prioritized differently, any politicized need can be better analyzed.

Unmet needs processed through criminal justice persist as painful. Politics promise relief, for both victim rights and rights of the accused. Needs relatively more resolved (self-needs on the left, social-needs on the right) are often under threat from the other side.

Politics offers protection—expressed as criminal justice reform or overhaul. Look beneath each other’s clashing political views, and you will find differing psychosocial needs anchored in each other’s psychosocial orientation.

• The more your self-needs resolve than your social-needs, the more you orient to a Wide-focus, and gravitate politically leftward. You fully accept who you personally and authentically are, but can feel less included in society around you.
• The more your social-needs resolve than your self-needs, the more you orient to a Deep-focus, and gravitate politically rightward. You enjoy cohesive bonds with your family and close-knit community, but can feel less sure about yourself apart from them.

Debating easily misses this fine distinction. Your needs are not open to debate. Neither are theirs. So let's set aside expecting opponents to change their beliefs to serve ourselves. Let's appreciate more of each other's unique set of intractable needs. Now you can listen more than argue. Affirm more than reject. Offer more than demand.

You listen. You hear for the vulnerable needs behind the guarded rhetoric. You appreciate how each side sees most clearly through the lens of their psychosocial orientation, wide or deep. You listen for needs rarely if ever spoken overtly in mixed company.

If liberal views expressed through a wide-oriented lens, the listener may hear...

"I need to feel safe around law enforcement whose reactive rules of engagement easily trigger my trauma, provoking my defensiveness in ways often misread as a threat."

If conservative views expressed through a deep-oriented lens, the listener may hear...

"I need to feel safe around others I don’t personally know who show a lack of personal responsibility, so I rely on responsive law enforcement to serve the justice needs of us all.”

You affirm. You recognize the inflexible needs behind their sharp rhetoric. What each side requires may be similar, but how they need it quickly diverges. The "how" includes who can regularly access what they require--themselves or must rely on others.

The wide-oriented's social-needs (like inclusion, belonging, equal respect) tend to be less resolved than their self-needs (like authenticity, uniqueness, personal freedom). This tension orients them to liberal ideas for relief.

The deep-oriented's social-needs (like familial cohesion, belonging, loyalty) tend to be more resolved than their self-needs (like initiative, self-determination, self-expression). This tension orients them to conservative ideas for relief.

They can't easily change the situation shaping their painfully felt needs, nor can you. Affirming each other's needs negates the inevitable pushback from blanket rejection.

• Wide's unmet social-need: CULTURAL INCLUSION. Affirm how feeling threatened by law enforcement’s apparent bias reinforces fears of cultural discrimination.
• Wide's guarded self-need: LEGALLY DIFFERENT. Affirm their confidence to be culturally different individuals, independent from conscious or subconscious pressures to fit into mainstream norms.
• Deep's guarded social-need: PUBLICLY SAFE. Affirm their confidence to be safe out in public, without worry about the safety of their loved ones.
• Deep's unmet self-need: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Affirm how feeling everyone must exercise self-control when tempted to be violent, and not indulge themselves on others just because others are doing it.

You offer. You link your capacity to faithfully serve their needs to their responsiveness to your affected needs. You set your needs aside just long enough to connect with theirs. In other words, you replace any temptation to turn hostile with a relatable love.

Look at those psychosocial needs cited above. Plug those into a sentence for relating to each other's impacted needs.

The wide-oriented offers the deep-oriented a path of relatable understanding. The liberal voice connects with the vulnerable needs behind conservative voices.

The more I honor your unmet self-need for personal responsibility, I trust you’ll find it easier to respect our guarded self-need to be legally different.

The more I respect your guarded social-need for publicly safe, I trust you’ll find it easier to honor our unmet social-need for cultural nondiscrimination.

The deep-oriented offers the wide-oriented a path of relatable understanding. The conservative voice connects with the vulnerable needs behind liberal voices

The more I respect your guarded self-need to be legally different, I trust you’ll find it easier to honor our unmet self-need for personal responsibility.

The more I honor your unmet social-need for cultural nondiscrimination, I trust you’ll find it easier to respect our guarded social-need for publicly safe.

This all fits into a larger process. It skips over a bulk of nuance to keep this introductory material accessible. This can, however, plant some seeds of legitimacy to help heal our dysfunctional politics. One loving act at a time. If you don't, who will?

3. Defusing Polarization: A whole new way to understand politics

I'm just getting started here. There isn't enough space in one article to delve into the depths of harmony politics.

More politicized issues will be parsed this way and posted here soon. Starting with this current article, here is the growing list of depolarized politicized positions.

• Immigration: easy entry or vetted entry.
• Climate Change: government regulated or deregulated.
• Gun Safety: government regulated or deregulated.
• Abortion: reproductive rights pro-choice or unborn rights pro-life.
• Healthcare: government administer or private insurer.
• Criminal Justice: transform or reform.
• Economy: government led or market led.
• Racism: common systemic or rare personal.

Later, I expect to use these to critique the tweets of candidates running for office. And welcome others to critique these candidates using the same criteria, including feedback for improving the process.

I best not get ahead of myself here. I need your inputs before creating stuff no one wants or ever uses. Please comment below answering these suggested questions, so I can build something to serve your pressing needs.

1. Do you deal with politics in your professional life?
2. If so, what is your most frustrating part of the day?
3. Why is most frustrating?
4. What are you doing about it?
5. How satisfied are you with the results?

If I can serve your politicking needs, then please contact me. I'd love to speak with you.

EXPLORE IN MORE DETAIL

For years, I've struggled how to bring this pioneering insight to market. My most recent effort attempts to provide a subscription to what I called Unifying Politics or Empowering Politics, but now stalled as I engage folks like to learn what those in the market actually need and willingly buy.

A couple years ago, I created a Udemy course covering far more depth than I can jump into here. I invite you now to check it out, by clicking on one of the course images below. And to keep me engaged with those like you who are passionate about politics, and longing to depolarize it. Oh, and to help finance early development of this pioneering service.

BASIC level

If all you need is space to learn at your own pace, enroll for only $9.99. Ask me anything about the course using Udemy's interactive feature. Click on image to visit.

ACTIVIST level

If you are involved in political activism and need to step up your game, enroll for $24.99. Ask me how I can apply this to your current activism needs as you wrap each of the course's seven units, using Udemy's interactive feature. Help me help you. Click on image to visit24

PROFESSIONAL level

If you oversee a professional political campaign (as a candidate running for office or on that candidate's staff), enroll for $44.99. Ask me anything about how to apply this pioneering approach to give you a competitive edge over your divisive opponents. We can segue to videoconferencing or an agreed upon format better suited to your needs. I envision providing a blueprint you can run with. Which could morph into a consulting agreement where I specifically serve your politicking goals. Click on image to visit.

SHARE THE WEALTH

If you find this article valuable, please click "like" and share freely. Spread the love, and let some of this love return back to you.

Don't forget to comment below. Thank you.