KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The parents of a Missouri eight-year-old boy are outraged after they say their blind son’s cane was taken away and replaced with a pool noodle.

Dakota Nafzinger, who was born without eyes, attends Gracemor Elementary School in Kansas City. Rachel Nafzinger told WDAF the school took away her son’s cane as punishment for bad behavior on the bus and gave him a swimming pool noodle to use as a substitute.

North Kansas City School District Spokeswoman Michelle Cronk confirmed the school took away Dakota’s cane, calling it school property that was given to him when he enrolled.

Cronk said the school took the cane after he reportedly struck someone on Monday while riding the bus. Cronk said the boy “fidgets” without his cane, so a pool noodle was given to him as a substitute.

Dakota’s father, Donald Nafzinger, said his son lifts his cane sometimes and the bus driver thought he was using it violently.

“They said they were going to give me this for the next two weeks,” Dakota said.

Dakota’s family claims the cane was taken as a way of “humiliating” him for misbehaving.

“All around, he’s a good little guy, and he shouldn’t be treated the way he’s being treated,” Donald Nafzinger said.

The League has been debating the merits of democracy for months now, with opinions ranging from support to total scepticism.  James, as is his wont tends to float around in the middle somewhere, knowing too much about how people think to trust democracy, but unable to think up a superior alternative.  But this isn’t about democracy as such, but rather one particular aspect of it – separation of powers.

The intuition behind separation of powers is appealing enough – people can’t be trusted with power, so you split the power up across a couple of groups and then have each group act to restrain the other.  Every form of liberal government uses separation of powers in some way, but standing above all of them is the United States, which doesn’t even let its executive declare war.  The founding fathers ensured the President couldn’t do much of anything without he cooperation of Congress, and vice versa.  And standing over both of them is the Supreme Court, holding a copy of the constitution like it was a rolled-up newspaper, ready to rap both of the other branches on the nose at the first sign of ultra vires actions.

Nice idea – a pity it doesn’t work.  The legislative check on war powers has been nothing more than a technicality since WWII, and when Obama wanted to act in Libya he didn’t even bother going though the formality of asking congress to rubber stamp his actions.  And congress did nothing.  So much for mutual checks on ambition.

And as for the Supreme Court, their performance has been less than stellar.  They may be technically independent, but they are still appointed by politicians, no judge who seriously wanted to restrain the government would be nominated or confirmed.  No, the primary qualification for being a Supreme Court Justice is a gift for sophistry – so as to rationalise the Constitutionality of anything the elected branches want to do.  I’m not saying the Supreme Court is useless, just mostly useless – the only amendment that hasn’t been at least partially undermined is the 3rd and that’s because building military bases is more of a vote winner than billeting soldiers in private homes.

And so with each passing year the executive takes power from congress, congress takes power from the states and the states take power form the individual.  For good or ill this is clearly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  And why hasn’t it worked?  Because the whole system relies on the vigilance of an informed voter and the average voter can’t tell you how many senators there are, much less who should be blamed when something bad happens.

At the New Zealand Economists Association conference earlier this year I heard a very interesting argument from Canterbury University lecturer Eric Crampton.  He pointed out that given the abundant research showing that voters lacked the knowledge and rationality to identify good policy the very best you could expect from voters is that they vote on a “is the country going in the right direction?” basis.  If things are going well, then fine.  If not – throw the bums out.  But how can you throw the bums out if you don’t know which bums are in charge?  Look at the Debt Ceiling Crisis – The President and Congress blamed each other and everyone believed whoever was ideologically convenient.  And when that doesn’t work there’s always the spectre of Judicial Activism is frighten the public with.  The multiple centres of power create multiple centres of responsibility.  This actually makes government less accountable to the people, not more.

In a world where voters actually knew what they were doing separation of powers might make sense, but we don’t live in that world and barring extensive cognitive enhancement of the general population we never will.  So I argue that we need to go in the other direction, turn the bug of power accumulation into a feature.  Get rid of legislative bodies and judicial review.  Just have one elected office – President, Chancellor or just call them the All-Tsar.  This person has total legal authority for their term of office, which means they can’t wriggle out of blame if things go badly.  With unitary power comes unitary responsibility.  You may argue that government is too big a job for one person, and that’s true.  But the elected office-holder will still be able to appoint as many assistants as they need, but the responsibility will still sit with the one elected official.

This is far from a perfect system, but at leas tit will finally be true that the buck stops there.  We can only work with the world we have, not the one we want and for this world separation of powers is worse than useless as a check on government abuse.

On the way across the Aegean Sea, Caesar was kidnapped by pirates and held prisoner. He maintained an attitude of superiority throughout his captivity. When the pirates thought to demand a ransom of twenty talents of silver, he insisted they ask for fifty. After the ransom was paid, Caesar raised a fleet, pursued and captured the pirates, and imprisoned them. He had them crucified on his own authority, as he had promised while in captivity—a promise the pirates had taken as a joke. As a sign of leniency, he first had their throats cut.

In Rome, Caesar was appointed dictator, with Mark Antony as his Master of the Horse (second in command); Caesar presided over his own election to a second consulship and then, after eleven days, resigned this dictatorship. Caesar then pursued Pompey to Egypt, arriving soon after the murder of the general. There Caesar was presented with Pompey's severed head and seal-ring, receiving these with tears. He then had Pompey's assassins put to death.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report released this week found that the CIA tortured terror suspects by, among other things, putting hummus in a man's anus, forcing suspects to stand on broken feet, and blasting detainees with songs such as "Rawhide" at loud volumes on repeat.

Many of the interrogators' actions were shocking and cruel, but some might argue (and some have argued) that torture is a necessary tool for extracting information. This, too, is dubious. The Senate investigation revealed that the CIA learned most of the valuable intelligence it gathered during this period through other means.

Military leaders have known about the pointlessness of torture for centuries. A quote by Napoleon, which was widely shared after the report's release, reads, "The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know." The French leader wrote that in a letter in 1798.*

Still, there will always be terrorists in the world, and we will always need to pump them for information. So if we don't torture, what should we do instead?

Pretend to be their friends.

A study published this year by Jane Goodman-Delahunty, of Australia's Charles Sturt University, interviewed 34 interrogators from Australia, Indonesia, and Norway who had handled 30 international terrorism suspects, including potential members of the Sri Lankan extremist group Tamil Tigers and the Norwegian-based Islamist group Ansar al Ismal. Delahunty asked the interrogators what strategies they used to gain information and what the outcomes of each interrogation session were.

The winning technique, as BPS Research Digest notes, was immediately clear:

Quote

Disclosure was 14 times more likely to occur early in an interrogation when a rapport-building approach was used. Confessions were four times more likely when interrogators struck a neutral and respectful stance. Rates of detainee disclosure were also higher when they were interrogated in comfortable physical settings.

This isn't just theoretical, either. One former U.S. Army interrogator told PRI this week that he was able to break through to an Iraqi insurgent over a shared love of watching the TV show "24" on bootleg DVDs.

"He acknowledged that he was a big fan of Jack Bauer," he told PRI. "We made a connection there that ultimately resulted in him recanting a bunch of information that he had said in the past and actually giving us the accurate information because we had made that connection."

Delahunty notes in the study that even though rapport-building strategies, which included things like humor and expressing concern, were recognized as more effective, interrogators were still more likely to use hardball accusatory strategies when dealing with "high-value" detainees, perhaps because the nature of their crimes were considered too horrendous for buddy-buddy interviewing.

In another study highlighted by BPS, regular people were found to be more supportive of torture if they were told the suspect was a terrorist—but not because they thought the suspect had more information. Their support for torture, in other words, was rooted on a desire for payback, not intelligence.

Torture can either be viewed as a punishment or as a way to gain life-saving intelligence. International conventions prohibit the former. Psychology studies suggest it's ineffective at the latter. Which brings us, once again, back to the question: Why do it?

In Norway, fewer than 4,000 of the country’s 5 million people were behind bars as of August 2014.

That makes Norway’s incarceration rate just 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 707 people for every 100,000 people in the US.

On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years.

Norway also has a relatively low level of crime compared to the US, according to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The majority of crimes reported to police there are theft-related incidents, and violent crime is mostly confined to areas with drug trafficking and gang problems.

Based on that information, it’s safe to assume Norway’s criminal justice system is doing something right. Few citizens there go to prison, and those who do usually go only once. So how does Norway accomplish this feat? The country relies on a concept called “restorative justice,” which aims to repair the harm caused by crime rather than punish people. This system focuses on rehabilitating prisoners.

Take a look at Halden Prison, and you’ll see what we mean. The 75-acre facility maintains as much “normalcy” as possible. That means no bars on the windows, kitchens fully equipped with sharp objects, and friendships between guards and inmates. For Norway, removing people’s freedom is enough of a punishment.

Like many prisons, Halden seeks to prepare inmates for life on the outside with vocational programs: wood-working, assembly workshops, and even a recording studio.

Halden isn’t an anomaly either. Bastoy prison is also quite nice.

As Bastoy prisoner governor Arne Wilson, also a clinical psychologist, explained to The Guardian:

Quote

In closed prisons we keep them locked up for some years and then let them back out, not having had any real responsibility for working or cooking. In the law, being sent to prison is nothing to do with putting you in a terrible prison to make you suffer. The punishment is that you lose your freedom. If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings.

All of these characteristics are starkly different from America’s system. When a retired warden from New York visited Halden, he could barely believe the accommodations. “This is prison utopia,” he said in a documentary about his trip. “I don’t think you can go any more liberal — other than giving the inmates the keys.”

In general, prison should have five goals, as described by criminologist Bob Cameron: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, restoration, and rehabilitation. In his words though, “Americans want their prisoners punished first and rehabilitated second.”

Norway adopts a less punitive approach than the US and focuses on making sure prisoners don’t come back. A 2007 report on recidivism released by the US Department of Justice found that strict incarceration actually increases offender recidivism, while facilities that incorporate “cognitive-behavioural programs rooted in social learning theory” are the most effective at keeping ex-cons out of jail.

The maximum life sentence in Norway shows just how serious the country is about its unique approach. With few exceptions (for genocide and war crimes mostly), judges can only sentence criminals to a maximum of 21 years. At the end of the initial term, however, five-year increments can be added onto to the prisoner’s sentence every five years, indefinitely, if the system determines he or she isn’t rehabilitated.

That’s why Norwegian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and mass shooting, was only sentenced to 21 years. Most of the outrage and incredulity over that sentence, however, came from the US.

Overall, Norwegians, even some parents who lost children in the attack, seemed satisfied with the sentence, The New York Times reported. Still, Breivik’s sentence, as is, put him behind bars for less than 100 days for every life he took, as The Atlantic noted. On the other hand, if the system doesn’t determine Breivik “rehabilitated,” he could stay in prison forever.

To those working within Norway’s prison system, the short sentences and somewhat luxurious accommodations make complete sense. As Are Hoidel, Halden Prison’s director, puts it: “Every inmates in Norwegian prison are going back to the society. Do you want people who are angry — or people who are rehabilitated?”

Spoiler