Most of you are aware that I do volunteer work in Oregon State Penitentiary working with a group of around 100 prisoners that I affectionately call ‘my guys’, as I have often shared some of the things I have done with them, while maintaining their privacy. I came across an article that asks some of the same questions and shares the same concerns that I have had for some time now: that all the effort toward prison reform is directed at nonviolent offenses.
For the most part, President Obama’s address to the N.A.A.C.P. annual convention on Tuesday was a remarkably honest appraisal of the American criminal-justice system. In an emphatic and sometimes moving speech, the President laid out some of the outrageous statistics that reformers have been citing for years: our prison population of 2.2 million has more than quadrupled since 1980, even though crime has been declining for two decades; the U.S. has five per cent of the world’s population but houses nearly a quarter of its prisoners; blacks and Latinos represent about thirty per cent of the nation’s population but almost sixty per cent of its prisoners. The result, Obama said, is a system that wastes billions of dollars a year and prevents too many people, especially minority men, from contributing to society, the economy, and their children’s lives. “Mass incarceration makes our country worse off,” he said. “And we need to do something about it.”
Obama’s bluntness was bracing, but as he made these statements he also repeated one of the most enduring myths of criminal-justice reform. “Over the last few decades, we’ve also locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before,” the President said. “And that is the real reason our prison population is so high.”
It is simply not true that the growth of the prison population is mainly due to the sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders. About half of federal inmates are serving sentences for drug crimes, but the federal system only accounts for about two hundred thousand prisoners. In state prisons, which house about 1.3 million, only sixteen per cent of inmates are serving a sentence for nonviolent drug offenses, according to the latest Department of Justice statistics. About fifty-four per cent, by far the largest number, are there for violent crimes, and about nineteen per cent for property offenses, like burglary. There is less data on the breakdown of the more than seven hundred thousand people in local jails; the most recent D.O.J. survey, in 2002, found that people with drug charges and violent-crime charges each made up about a quarter of jail inmates. Assuming that’s still the case, even if every single nonviolent drug offender were released tomorrow, the incarcerated population would stand at around 1.7 million—still nearly a fifth of the world total.
As Leon Neyfakh wrote for Slate in March, the distinction between “nonviolent” and “violent” is not always clear-cut. Some “violent” crimes, like illegal gun possession, in many states, don’t require an actual violent act, while some offenders who did commit violence may plead guilty to a less serious, nonviolent charge. But it’s clear that the vast majority of inmates are imprisoned for something other than nonviolent drug offenses. There is, in short, no way to make a meaningful dent in mass incarceration without lowering the number of people locked up for violent crimes…
…It’s comforting to think that we can undo the moral and economic failures of the criminal-justice system without relinquishing any of our desire to punish people who commit acts of violence. But, as the President said, we need to be honest. Having a fifth of the world’s prison population would be better than having a fourth, but not by much. We can end mass incarceration, or we can maintain current policies toward violent crime, but we can’t do both. [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The New Yorker>
For most of our history, America has followed a correctional policy of lex talionis, the notion that the purpose of prisons is to punish evildoers. While this is no longer acknowledged, officials saying instead that the purpose is to protect the public from evildoers, it is still practiced, especially in sentencing and release. The biggest contributors to US violent prison populations are mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws that take sentencing out of the hands of judges. With such sentencing laws, prisoners have less incentive to reform.
As an alternative, I support restorative justice. The purpose of prison is to return to the community individuals who have made the effort to understand their crimes, correct the thinking errors that justified their crimes, and developed intervention strategies to recognize problems early-on and break the cycle, before it spirals out of control to more crime. This is the kind of work I do with my guys.
Among my guys, there may be a couple nonviolent drug offenders, but I can’t think of any. They have committed violent crimes. Nevertheless, I trust all the men with whom I have worked long enough to know well. Of those that have been released since 2005, only two of over twenty five have returned to prison, and both are out again.
So I am not suggesting leniency for violent criminals. I am suggesting giving them an opportunity to earn their freedom by doing whatever it takes to change into a law-abiding citizens who are not a threat to their communities.
You should support restorative justice for one reason. Since almost every prisoner is released eventually, you can be sure that someone, who has committed a violent crime will be moving into your neighborhood. Would you prefer the embittered person warehoused under a mandatory minimum, whose only change is that he is better educated in criminal technique? Or would you prefer the product of restorative justice, who did whatever it took to change?
28 Responses to “Mass Incarceration and Violent Crime”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A long time ago, prisons were supposed to be for rehabilitating, along with punishment. To teach a trade for the person to use when they got out to make their way in the world. At least, that’s what it was SUPPOSED to do! Teach them to read and they will have a way to get by! Teach them HOW to work, and they will have an income, instead of reoffending! All until the paw and order society got hold of the rule books!
Sad that all the people who make the rules have never made a mistake to have to be forgiven for!
Often it's because they haven't been caught.
Wow, TC, this is a subject which is filled with complexities.
Let me throw out this one concept right up front: The lex talionis does have a compassionate side. You can see this more easily if you contrast the idea of "Giving him/her what (punishment) he/she deserves" with the idea of"NOT giving him/her MORE (punishment) than he/she deserves," which is also a part of the retributive concept. And at least that is something which is measurable. This could be a good thing, or it could be a bad thing.
When you use the term "restorative justice," I believe you are going above and beyond "rehabilitation," and that is a very good thing. It does, however, to be successful require people who have both insight and common sense to administer it, and both qualities are rare. Both in the same person is very rare. You have both, and are a very rare individual indeed.
Let me address your prescription of making the effort to understand their crimes, correcting the thinking errors that justified their crimes, and developing intervention strategies to recognize problems early-on and break the cycle. I know that works. You know that works. I expect almost everyone has seen that work, even if only for someone in a twelve-step group which uses that basic strategy. It has worked for every one of your guys. But it also doesn't work for everyone.
There are people who are not capable of correcting their thinking errors and keeping the errors corrected without slipping into the old patterns. There are people who may be able to develop intervention strategies, but are unable to use them, whether because they do not grasp that they are needed, or for whatever reason. I am thinking primarily of people who have suffered traumatic brain injury (particularly to the pre-frontal cortex), because I am most familiar with that. It is also easier to explain – if you cut the cord of an appliance, it will not work. Yes, an electrician can put in a new cord or splice the old one, but no one (whatever you see on Star Trek, or whatever Ben Carson thinks) can go into someone's head and splice those wires. Generally the causes of this are no fault of their own, so under retributive justice they ought to be free. Except that these really are the people who pose a danger to the community and to themselves – unlike your guys. That's where the insight becomes critically necessary.
I won't even get started on the line (which resembles the Mississippi River in both size and muddiness) between violent and non-violent. Getting any agreement there would be a Herculean task.
I absolutely support restorative justice. I have no idea how to get there. Most people I know and most places I read about are still focusing on seeing to it that the warehousing remains warehousing and does not cross the line into actual abuse. Not a permanent solution, I know, but one I think necessary – and not easy.
I think a pragmatic first step related to violence offenses would be to focus on those where the crime was committed while on meth or pcp, etc. and their addiction has been treated and on those where the offense classified as violent happened while incarcerated. In the latter, some offenses charged would not be a crime on the outside. Also should look at property crimes-many criminal justice researchers say most is attributable to supporting a drug habit and it is only accidental whether they got caught on property or drug crime.
In CA, we do have some mental health commitments instead of incarceration which, beginning in the 1990's, included sex offenders. And a couple of prisons have what are supposed to be mental health wings/cell blocks-Charles Manson lives at one.
The biggest dangers can be to those who are innocent and thus never needed their thinking altered. Sirhan Sirhan loses at every parole hearing because he continues to assert his innocence.
Many who supported three strikes laws sincerely believed that it would lead felons to leave their state and go elsewhere and that was the main benefit to their communities.
In-prison rehab has as a major challenge that it is correctional officers who decide who they will refer in actual practice, no matter what the official policies may say.
Not enough jurisdictions have mental health courts and most do not have sufficient treatment services to meet the demand from their drug courts; altering those two elements could help reduce the prison pipeline numbers and recidivism, too.
Basically, it calls for legislators to agree that we need to treat both those charged and convicted as if they are human beings deserving of decent treatment.
In my experience, past narcotics issues do not make a former prisoner more likely to succeed that one with no addidctin issues.
In the data I've worked with, it relates to how comprehensive an approach the treatment program had that brought them out of their addiction on likelihood of success. I specifically mention PCP and meth because of the manic aspects without normal brakes on risky behaviors that differs from most other drugs regarding what a person's ordinary thinking is.
I see. Thank you.
You are welcome. I just verified that opoid dependence still dominates in OR–and I agree with you when that and/or alcohol are the drugs of choice.
People don't really choose what they get addicted to – but that is a whole nother issue for another day.
For the most part, I agree. Restorative justice should be the overriding goal. Where it applies, it should be pursued as aggressively as possible. Punitive justice, per se, is self-defeating in the long run, but there will be instances where the offender simply cannot be rehabilitated. In those cases, keeping the offender segregated from society is the best option. I do not have the knowledge or experience to make that determination, and save for absolute opposition to capital punishment, must leave that to others.
I see two qualifications to this general attitude that should be addressed. One is the visceral desire for revenge, which is a basic human emotion, and one which many facets of the criminal justice system are not adequately fine-tuned to address. I have no idea how to address this.
The other, which I haven't seen you comment on, is the increasing nation-wide push for private, for-profit prisons. As far as I know, Oregon doesn't have any – it's nice to live in a relatively sane state – but this strikes me as an unacceptable perversion of any justice system designed to operate for the public good rather than some commercial entity's bottom line.
Excellent points, especially since the contracts for the private prisons guarantee a certain number of prisoners.
John, I agree. I have commented on private prisons before. They shoulds be outlawed.
TC, I would be surprised if you hadn't commented on it. My attendence at this site has been sporadic this year, so I missed it. This is something that needs continual public scrutiny. If we leave it to the politicians – most of whom I distrust – we will get what is either popular (read "vote getting") or expedient. There are so many other aspects of this issue that we could devote an entire website to it. You have far more real life experience and accumulated knowledge and expertise than most, and I for one would like to see you devote an entire thread to this subject alone.
Sooner or lazter, I will, John. It's not an issue for my guys anymore, because Oregon fired CCA.
I support restorative justice and am totally against the three strikes law. The only experience that I have with the prison system was when a 17 year old relative was joy riding with three friends, all of them high on something, and the driver hit and killed a pedestrian.My relative was passed out in the back seat when it happened and when he came to, they were at a car wash and the other boys told him they had hit a deer. Witnesses had given a description of their vehicle and the police soon found them. My relative was very cooperative, even took the police back to the area where they had "hit the deer". The policeman's testimony resulted in my relative being given probation. Three months later, he was picked up for public drunkeness, and sentenced to 90 days in jail. He was taking classes to get his GED. During his 90 days in jail, no effort was made to allow him to continue his classes, he slept on a concrete floor with only a blanket, and was treated like a violent criminal instead of a stupid kid who had an idiot for a mother. Now he has two strikes. He is 36 years old now, and that still follows him. He got his GED, took college courses, married, and has a child. That all is still on his record and has affected his efforts to find a decent job. How long are people supposed to be punished after they serve their time? Private prisons are a disgrace to our country, a lot of cases have been shown that judges profited from sentencing people to these private prisons. They should be eliminated.
Many prisons move inmates around so much they cannot possibly complete classes or programs–major study in the 1990's on TX. FL at the time was trying to ensure the same classes and programs were everywhere so when moved, inmates could continue what they were doing…I think that ended when less compassionate administrations took office.
The ongoing punishment after release is a separate issue, but very real and necessary to address.
Oh Edie – the story of your relative's treatment appalls me – and how often must that sort of thing happen these days! The fact that his 'two strikes' still follow him decades later is just beyond words – and as you say private jails are a disgrace – and some would say they are cancer on the nation – and they are spreading across the globe.
Having read the article, your excellent addendum, TomCat and all the equally well thought-out comments, I'd like to add two points to the discussion:
1. From everything that has been brought to the discussion here, it is clear that the American criminal-justice system is in desperate need of a massive general overhaul, starting with a redefinition of crime and punishment (e.g. possession of marijuana shouldn't be a crime) and sending the nonviolent drug offenders home. Next would be a redefinition of sentencing in relation to the crime. It should be restorative in principle, but it should also be tailor made to the person in question. Sadly not everyone can be "restored" and some may need far more and longer specialized restoration than others. In The Netherlands we have (still) a system in which violent criminals who, after psychological evaluation, are thought to remain a serious risk to the public after normal incarceration and rehabilitation or who have refused to cooperate with evaluation and deemed dangerous nevertheless, remain in special custody indefinitely "at the government's disposition" and go through a rigorous restoration program until psychiatric experts deem them safe to return to society or they are incarcerated for the rest of their lives because they are beyond restoration. It's a far from perfect system, but I think at the moment one of the better systems around. As usual, with politics shifting to the right, the system is under heavy criticism (claims it doesn't work, some mistakes have been made with dire consequences, too expensive), but it still stands for now.
2. No matter how good a criminal-justice system is, all work done inside may come to naught if those who return to society aren't given a chance to build a normal new life. If a system is inherently racist, then people who return after restoration, will return to the same racist society and be subjected to the same conditions as before which make it very hard to stay on top of it. Restoration shouldn't stop when the prison gates close behind them, it should continue in their new setting. This means that not whole criminal-justice system should be reformed from top to bottom, including rehabilitation, case workers and whoever is involved after a person returns to society. At no time should those services be cut, they should be expanded to make any reform a success.
One problem with determining what is and is not legal – and Americans forget this ALL THE TIME – is that we don't have one system, we have something like 57 systems. Each state, and each territory, generally makes its own laws to determine what is criminal. But the Federal government also has laws as to what is or is not a Federal crime, and it has its own prison system. If every state but one, and the Feds, decriminalized marijuana possesssion, it would still be a crime in that last state. So it's not as easy as it sounds (not that it sounds easy, it doesn't, but whatever it sounds like, it's harder than that.)
It's a complex subject about which I don't know enough to make a meaningful comment, other than I'm glad to see it's getting some much-deserved bipartisan attention.
Yes, the bipartisan aspect provides more hope for some effective action.
I think it's less bipaartisan than it appears. The Republican motivation is to save money, but they are not willing to spend the money needed for the programming to implement restorative justice.
Thanks all. Kudos to Joanne and Lona. It was never my intent here to take on all the ills of trhe criminal justice system and focused on the onw small slice of the problem that I know very well, as it pertains to my guys.
I fully agree that restorative justice does not work for everyone. It requires that one be willing and able to do whatever it takes to change. I would be overjoyed, if we had a system like the one Lona describes.
Hi guys! Sorry I didn't comment yesterday but I did a face plant brought on by too much heat and insufficient sleep Saturday night, again courtesy of our mini heatwave.
Like nameless, I don't know enough to comment other than to say if society wants prisoners to not reoffend, there must be an investment in counselling and education. By counselling I mean programmes that help prisoners understand how they got to this point, and then change their thinking. By education I mean usable trades training or other skill that they can use on the outside. That would also include GED.
I hope you're feeling hetter now.
I refer to your programme of facing up to what they have done and getting to grips with strategies to avoid them happening again often TC (sorry, too ill to find the right words) – but I am definitely going to quote this too
"Of those that have been released since 2005, only two of over twenty five have returned to prison, and both are out again." – I doubt many other programmes can show such excellent results.
T^hanks Pat. Average recidivism in Oregon is 32%. Nationwide, it's 67%.