The purpose of imprisonment, indeed, of the whole justice system, is to replace what would otherwise be mob justice. Of the various academic characteristics of the justice system: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, the former is arguably the most important one, or at least the one that most directly animates the existence of the justice system.

From that point of view, what is most relevant is peoples' perception of crime, and peoples' perception of the criminals, not necessarily actual crime rates. When people see sky-high murder rates, a crime that is considered the most grievous one possible and the kind of crime that becomes a focal point for the public discourse, and when they don't feel a social bond with the people convicted of crimes, they will not be satisfied by the kind of more lenient prison sentences and conditions you see in European countries.

The middle aged suburban voter is not interested in the rehabilitative aspect of the justice system, the aspect that reintegrates criminals into society, because that criminal was never part of that suburbanite's society to begin with. That voter is merely interested in retribution. At the same time, the criminal doesn't see the situation any differently. He has no faith in the institutions of society. He knows that he will never be considered a part of the broader society, so his incentive to really try to be rehabilitated vanishes. So the recidivism rate in the U.S. is double or triple that of places like Norway: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277771/norway-is....

Contrast Norway: http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2011/07/crime_and_punishment_... ("As Norwegians view it, if you’re going to better yourself within a collective society, then you must work within the collective. When it comes to crime, it’s not about the individual. It’s about what — as a society — they did wrong, and what they can correct, and how they can address this politically.")

Now, to circle back to my point: what creates these attitudes? Are Norwegians just better people than Americans? I don't think that's the case. I think the root of the difference is that Americans don't think of everyone as being part of the same collective. Partly because of cultural reasons, and partly because of historical reasons. The lack of homogeneity and social cohesion is a major part of what creates the attitudes. Segregation, in particular, has left an indelible imprint on modern American society. After all, much of the country was forcibly desegregated just two generations ago. To put it bluntly, when a black (or hispanic) kid in inner-Baltimore commits a crime, the white voters in suburban Maryland don't ask themselves, like the Norwegians do, "what did society do wrong? How can we correct the problem?"

I know that the kind of non-informative comment I'm about to make is rightly discouraged, but I really can't resist. This was a supremely insightful and well-written note, and I feel I understand some things better after reading it.

I agree with this analysis, but I also think that inclusiveness is malleable.

In "Song of Myself", Walt Whitman wrote "In all people I see myself, none more and not one a barleycorn less/and the good or bad I say of myself I say of them". The Parable of the Good Samaritan is all about how we choose our own levels of identification and some are more morally praiseworthy than others.

So yes, the problem might well be the lack of identification between your white voters in suburban Maryland and your black kid in inner-Baltimore (and vice versa of course), but we can and do change. Society moves forwards, and we are not entirely passive actors in it.

Let's make arguments that encourage greater identification, take social steps to increase identification, etc. It may well be easier for those societies in Europe, but it's by no means easy, which your analysis seems to ignore. These attitudes have to be worked on, and reinforced.