首页
登录
职称英语
Two sides almost never change: That you can manipulate people into self-suff
Two sides almost never change: That you can manipulate people into self-suff
游客
2024-09-19
1
管理
问题
Two sides almost never change: That you can manipulate people into self-sufficiency and that you can punish them into good citizenship.
The first manifests itself in our tireless search for the magical level at which welfare grants are big enough to meet basic needs but small enough to make low-paid work attractive. The second has us looking to the criminal justice system to cure behavior that is as much as anything the result of despair.
The welfare example is well known. We don’t want poor people to live in squalor or their children to be malnourished. But we also don’t want to subsidize the indolence of people who are too lazy to work. The first impulse leads us to provide housing, food stamps, medical care and a cash stipend for families in need. The second gets us to think about "workforce".
We’ve been thinking about it for two reasons: the "nanny" problems of two high-ranking government officials(who hired undocumented foreigners as household helpers, presumably because they couldn’t find Americans to do the work)and President Clinton’s proposal to put a two-year limit on welfare.
Maybe something useful will come of Clinton’s idea, but I’m not all that hopeful. It looks to me like one more example of trying to manipulate people into taking care of themselves.
On the criminal justice side, we hope to make punishment tough enough to discourage crime but not so tough as to clog our prisons with relatively minor offenders. Too short a sentence, we fear, will create contempt for the law. Too long a sentence will take up costly space better used for the violent and unremorseful.
Not only can we never find the "perfect" punishment, our search for optimum penalties is complicated by our desire for fairness: to let the punishment fit the crime. The problem is that almost any punishment—even the disgrace of being charged with a crime—is sufficient to deter the middle class, while for members of the underclass, probation may be translated as "I beat it. "
So how can you use the system—welfare or criminal justice—to produce the behavior we want? The answer, I suspect is: You can’t.
We keep trying to use welfare and prison to change people—to make them think and behave the way we do—when the truth is the incentives work only for those who already think the way we do: who view today’s action with an eye on the future.
We will take lowly work(if that is all that’s available)because we believe we can make bad jobs work for us. We avoid crime not because we are better people but because we see getting caught as a future-wrecking disaster. We are guided by a belief that good things will happen for us in the future if we take proper care of the present. Even under the worst of circumstances, we believe we are in control of our lives.
And we have trouble understanding that not everybody believes as we believe. The welfare rolls, the prisons and the mean streets of our cities are full of people who have given up on their future. Without hope for the future, hard work at a low-paid job makes no sense. Working hard in school, or pleasing a boss, or avoiding pregnancy makes no sense. The deadly disease is hopelessness. The lawlessness and poverty are only the obvious symptoms.
I’m not advocating that we stop looking for incentives to move poor people toward self-sufficiency or that we stop punishing people for criminal behavior. There will always be some people who need help and some who deserve to be in jail.
All I’m saying is that the long-term answer both to welfare and the crime that plagues our communities is not to fine tune the welfare and criminal justice systems but to prevent our children from getting the disease of despair.
If we encourage our young people to believe in the future, and give them solid evidence for believing we’ll find both crime and poverty shrinking to manageable proportions. [br] Which of the following is the most appropriate tide for the passage?
选项
A、Lawlessness and Poverty.
B、Criminal Justice System.
C、Welfare Grants.
D、Disease of Despair.
答案
D
解析
主旨题。本题考查的是在把握全文大意的基础上拟定文章标题。首先,全文都在谈两个方面,一个是刑事司法体系,一个是福利补助,二者缺一不可,因此排除[B]和[C];其次,从原文第十三段可知,福利和犯罪的长期解决方案不是微调福利和刑事法律体系,而是要防止我们的孩子染上绝望这种疾病。因此,答案为[D]。[A]是产生刑事法律体系和福利补助的两个诱因,并非文章讨论的重点及目的所在,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3764314.html
相关试题推荐
BeingwithSeamusHeaneywaslikebeingwithtwopeopleatonce.Ontheone
BeingwithSeamusHeaneywaslikebeingwithtwopeopleatonce.Ontheone
Disgustingasthefoodis,hetriestosinghighlyofthedishesinexchangeof
Priorityshouldbegiventopeople’slivelihoodandtheirtangiblebenefits.The
Itisstability______destroyspeople’sambitionandbarricadespeople’ssteps.A、
Twosidesalmostneverchange:Thatyoucanmanipulatepeopleintoself-suff
Areex-prisonerstherightpeopletoteachyoungstersthedangerofcommitti
Becausethisareahasahighrateofcrime,therearemanypeoplemovingout.Th
Frankalmostneverreceivedanyeducation,______?A、wouldheB、didn’theC、woul
Asmanypeoplehitmiddleage,theyoftenstarttonoticethattheirmemory
随机试题
[originaltext]M:Alexandra,wheredidyouworkbefore?W:Iworkedatanairpor
党的十八届五中全会提出:要运用法治思维和法治方式推动发展,全面提高党依据宪法法律
A.对个体或群体的健康进行全面监测、分析、评估、提供健康咨询和指导以及对健康危险
采用水泥稳定碎石土、砾石土或含泥量大的砂、砂砾时,宜掺入一定剂量的石灰进行综合稳
A.T波低平 B.T波平坦 C.T波高耸 D.T波倒置 E.T波双向急性
关于投资价值与市场价值异同点的说法,正确的有()。A.市场价值是客观的价值
在采用假设开发法中的传统方法进行房地产估价时,一般不计息的项目是( )。A.未
社会学习论的理论根源是()。单选A.心理分析 B.行为主义 C.认知
220kV变电站内主要环形消防道路路面宽度宜为4m,从站区大门至主变压器的运输道
(2015年真题)一般用于星型网的布线连接,两端装有RJ-45头,连接网卡与集线
最新回复
(
0
)