There’s no point to this thread. I don’t have any agenda, and there are no segues. I damned sure don’t have any answers, but am really just talking out loud. What I’m interested in is a discussion, welcoming all opinions, and with a promise to personally consider all points and perspectives. Bring as much or little personal bias / political bent as you’d like to bring or involve, if any. Background: My youngest son (9) isn’t much of a tv / movie watcher, but he’s always been keenly interested in anything law enforcement-related, and given a choice, will always choose to watch shows of that genre. Cops, World’s Toughest Prisons, and especially the MSNBC series “Lock Up” (also on Netflix). So, if he and I are watching something, it’s usually that. My Rambling Point: I don’t know what to think about the incarcerated population of the US, and the whole law enforcement / criminal justice system that feeds it. It seems that we have an extraordinarily high percentage of incarcerated persons, both tangibly when compared to other and similar nations, but also intangibly, and simply many, many more than I would think that a society of our wealth, resources and opportunities should have. First, my point in this thread isn’t to focus narrowly on drugs, gender or race - although admittedly, each play a significant role - because I think that the situation is infinitely bigger and more complicated than those three issue alone can explain. Random example: I saw 3 guys in their 20’s get 15 years in the penitentiary for a home invasion, and frankly, I wonder how suitable the time matches the crime. First, why 15? Why not 14, 16, 38 or 4? It makes no sense to me, as a layman. To what standard are we measuring criminal injury to the punishment and sentencing? And what do we hope to accomplish in giving them those 15 years? Pure punishment? Rehabilitation? Public safety? Deterrence? Some or all of those? Others I’ve failed to mention? What are we doing to achieve those ends, whatever they are, and how successful are we in that endeavor? Considering our high rates of incarcerated persons and their recidivism rate once released, punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence seem to be easily ruled out as either our aim or that we are in any way successful in achieving it. And if it’s for public safety, why ever let them out at all? In fact, why not just kill them, and save the money? If the factors involved in that person’s life lead to a crime that resulted in a 15-year prison sentence....how much worse will those and other factors then be, and how much more difficult will their lives then be, after being locked up for 15 years with other criminals, completely removed from any semblance of life in a free society, such as they’ll re-enter? If poverty drove their criminal activity, what are their prospects for attaining employment upon release, after a felony conviction and 15 years in prison? If we think that we can educate them out of their criminal behavior, then how successful is the “positive” achievement of becoming educated in prison going to ultimately help them, again, if it resulted from a felony conviction and a 15-year prison sentence? At what point does the 15-year (again, my saying 15 years is just an attempt at being consistent in my exampling...all of these points would be equally valid and applicable for 5, 55, 255 year sentences) not only set them up for failure, once released, but almost guarantee it? And if so, how sensible is it to do that, no matter what anyone intends, hopes or expects to occur? It seems like we’re trying to extinguish an already blazing fire with kerosene, and dynamite. If punishment is the point, then let’s stop lying by saying it’s about anything else - rehabilitation, education, reform, etc. And let’s stop throwing a bunch of money at shit that we don’t really mean, and which doesn’t really help, seemingly, simply because purporting and perpetuating the lie makes us feel better, but really changes nothing. And let’s really punish them - you sit in a cell for 23 hours a day, and there are neither any programs nor resources to seek any end but pure and painful punishment? And who stands up and speaks for the incarcerated, exactly? Can anyone name a single politician who has ever run on a message about going easier on crime and criminals? Does anyone think that’s a winning formula for any election, at any level, or for any office? But everyone wants to get tougher, and more aggressive. So, at what point do our elected officials just keep ramping up the punishment on a maligned group who can’t speak for themselves, and who most want to see increasingly punished with yet another pound of flesh? Are we relying on the courts and the judiciary to do this? Fine - but then explained how it’s not judges who established these laws and sentencing to begin with? And who passed the additional mandatory sentencing laws? Hell, who appoints those judges, anyway? To say that reform is possible via the courts seems naive, at best, and impossible, at worst. To be clear: If it were my home and my family that was the victim of this crime, I’d want them to each get life, and understood why anyone else would want the same if similarly victimized. But then, I’m not at all sure that I’d be best-suited to determine what justice would be in that case, or that any victim would be any better or more of a just arbiter of it, either. And, to be similarly and strongly clear, nothing in this thread should seen as in any way impugning, subduing, removing or in any way altering my preeminent support for the rule of law. This is about justice, intent and outcomes, but all within the bounds of the rule of law.
No, they weren’t armed. Just strong-armed their way in. But, that was just a randomly plucked example. My larger points extend way beyond that single case. We’re doing great when it comes to our frequency of putting people in jail, but that seems like it’s the only part that we’ve thought through, or about.
I believe the only valid occasion for incarceration is when the presence of an individual in open society poses an intolerable risk to the community. In the case of someone brazen enough to violate the sanctity of one's home, I can't marshal much sympathy for the offenders but would suggest ten instead of fifteen years (with the chance for early release). Inmates should be treated with respect and given as much freedom as they can handle. The entire focus of prison should be on providing skills and knowledge to lower recidivism and produce productive citizens. This means more training for correctional staff, a change in public sentiment on things like the necessity of punishment, and divorcing capitalism from the penal system. Sixty Minutes recently profiled prisons in Germany and I think the blueprint is approximately transferable to this country. How can we afford it? End the war on drugs.
Good post, Tenny. I also point to the need to change our post-incarceration policies and attitudes. There is such a stigma and restriction on ex-felons that leading a productive life beyond bars is often very difficult, resulting in a return to prison a high percentage of the time.
Not going to change the post-incarceration attitudes until the actual incarceration starts going a bit differently. Nobody wants to hire a guy that spent the last decade giving himself tattoos, raping other inmates, drinking stuff brewed in the toilet, and other stuff that seems to be relatively commonplace in our prisons.
My wife watches those Locked Up shows on Netflix, and I find them horribly depressing. The conditions that the prisoners live in is bad enough, but the dog-eat-dog black market and pecking order that arises in these places is disturbing. You lock them up and treat them like animals, and to no one's surprise, they act like animals. But prison reform is probably a non-starter for anyone seeking office, as most Americans believe we are probably too soft on crime, even though we have the largest population of prisoners in the world. Yes, the prisoners need to take responsibility for themselves, and if they do, there are many avenues for them to take to get their GED, a trade skill, etc. But I do not think it is pressed hard enough and the world these people come from and are put into while in prison is not the best way to instill rehabilitation in them.
I hire quite a few people with various misdemeanors. They all tend to end up in jail for dumb shit. The felons tend to never work out. I'm game to give anybody a chance, but it's all they know. Once they get some money in their pocket, it usually ends in handcuffs. Funny story, we had to get background checks to work in one particular building. We do our own, we've had a few DUIs, some minor pot possession, several lost driver's licenses due to no insurance but nothing terrible. This particular job, however, had a very strict background check system. We weren't the prime GC, just subs to do plumbing and utility work. Once the background checks came back, every person on the job, barring 9 people, couldn't work in the building. We had 5 of the people that passed. Eventually, they let nearly everyone work and just never mentioned the background checks again.
I think there is a fairly simply way to break up the black market and pecking order stuff; Rotate them every 6 months. Won’t happen though, because someone’s family will say it’s cruel and unusual to have to drive XYZ distance, when they used to drive XYZ-90 miles.
Federal problems could be solved in a hurry - https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp TN state level is a bit more interesting and balanced (page 3) - https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/correction/documents/FelonApril2018.pdf Most interesting to me is TN women's incarceration rates have increased 400% since 1993 - https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/correction/documents/FelonFemaleApril2018.pdf
