Here at Painefully Honest, we tend to take a more classical, Western stance on how we should handle the treatment of hardened criminals: shoot them. Obviously, though, modern judicial systems call for more “efficient” and “humane” ways to eradicate the threat that criminals pose to society. However, this is far from the case. In fact, due to poorly intentioned politics, strict legal codes and downright incompetency, the United States is currently the proud record holder of the most overcrowded, costly, inefficiently administered criminal justice system on the face of the inhabited Earth. In the following article, we will examine the causes, conditions and effects of incarceration in the United States and, of course, discuss new, cutting edge ideas that could prove to be viable solutions to our honestly painful prison system.
At the moment, the United States has a per-capita incarceration rate that is higher than that of any other country in the world. With more than one out of every one hundred of our citizens currently in the government’s custody, billions of dollars and countless lives are being wasted (Warren). Prisons are overflowing with inmates and, just this month, a California court has ruled that California’s prison system, the largest in the nation, must cut its prison population to an appropriate and manageable number. Currently, California’s prison system holds over 171,000 inmates. It is designed to hold 150,000.
So what are the causes of all of this overcrowding? We’re glad you asked. One of the reasons is an antiquated judicial system. In his article in a recent edition of The Journal of Politics, Kevin B. Smith explains that imprisonment is not only a form of punishment and rehabilitation, but is a method of social control, through which partisan politics can be used to advance one constituency’s interests by damaging the interests of another (Smith, 926). For instance, forfeiture laws are laws that allow law enforcement officials to confiscate any item from a known drug user if there is any “reasonable suspicion” that such an item was purchased with “drug money.” Furthermore, drug laws carry federal mandatory drug sentences that many are fighting to abolish due to their blatant disregard for contextual and situational evidence. What this means is that if you were an honest, legally employed, Harvard graduate and you were caught with, say, 100 plants of Marijuana, you would be automatically sentenced to a 5-year prison term without parole. Clearly an excessive sentence considering that if you were to attempt to drink 100 bottles of alcohol you would likely die after the third or fourth, whereas if you attempted to smoke 100 plants of Marijuana you would be likely to either take an impromptu nap or get a tummy ache from eating too much. But that is beside the point. These mandated sentences came into place during the beginning of the “war on drugs” in 1980. Since this “war” began, the United States has seen its prison population quadruple, while violent crime and property crime have actually decreased since 1990. An article posted in 1997 on the Drug Policy Reform Blog clearly articulates this message:
It costs approximately $500,000 to put a new person in jail; $150,000 to build a new cell; $150,000 for arrest and prosecution; and $150,000 to $200,000 to incarcerate that person for five years. In 1980, there were 2, 654 (33%) commitments for nonviolent offenses, of which 885 (11%) were for sale or possession of drugs. In 1996, there were 21,171 state prison commitments. Of that, 6,192 (29%) were for violent felonies. There were 12,865 (61%) commitments for nonviolent offenses, of which 9,841 (46%) were for sale or possession of drugs. This trend is obviously backward. Any sane society worried about violence would not be wasting extremely expensive prison space by quarantining nonviolent people.
Granted, certain drugs need to be kept off the street, but throwing these offenders in prisons that are meant to house real criminals is a large contributor to the overpopulation issue. In 1999, a Department of Justice survey indicated that over 1 million nonviolent prisoners were currently incarcerated in the United States, and that 87% of federal prisoners, 53% of state prisoners, and 74% of jail inmates were imprisoned for an offences that involved neither harm nor threat of harm to a victim (Arditti, 195).
The second reason for overcrowding is that prisoners are stupid. Well, along with our correctional system, of course. See, the “rehabilitation” part of our definition of incarceration is usually gone unnoticed. The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (the name itself reflecting our government’s painful lack of humanity) reports that in 1994, sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders. What is happening here is that many prisoners either consider prison to be a right of passage – like gang members – or they are simply unaffected by it – like the aforementioned sex offenders.
Civil commitment is a process by which a family or the government commits an individual to a rehabilitation facility against his or her will because he or she poses a threat to society and/or him or herself. It is precisely the same definition as incarceration, except for the fact that no crime actually has to be committed and that successful rehabilitation is actually the primary objective. Medications, support staff and psychotherapy all play a role in civil commitment to turn committed individuals into safe, productive members of society. As far as we’re concerned, gang members are largely a lost cause. A study by the Journal of Gang Research found evidence that recidivism rates among gang members were statistically significantly higher than any other group classification (McShane). This is mainly attributed to the fact that being in a gang is rarely something that can be “rehabilitated;” whether or not an individual wants out, there is usually no choice. But for those for whom there is hope, civil commitment is a much more uplifting option. Being able to rehabilitate and mentally stabilize drug and psychologically unstable offenders not only opens up an extra cell for a hopeless gangbanger, but it effectively saves a life by offering that person a brighter future. But the problem is, civil commitment facilities (usually mental health hospitals) are considered to be much worse than prisons. “Patient Advocates” fight to prevent forced medication and to grant their clients freedom from involuntary commitment situations. These facilities remain virtually unoccupied while their staff eagerly awaits the arrival of someone who is there not to be punished, but to be helped.
So far, we have only discussed the effects of incarceration on the offender. But what is often overlooked and seldom considered is the effect on that person’s family. Contenders that Marijuana is a gateway drug would be better off ditching their worthless argument to advocate instead that parental imprisonment is a gateway to criminal behavior. Take, for instance, the fact that as of 2002, 80% of protective service agencies had no specific policies or guidelines for finding foster care for children whose caregiver has been incarcerated (Johnson, 463). That’s right, these children are most likely to become those gang members who we are oh-so fond of.
So then what on Earth is the solution to all of this? Is there a way to streamline this process to the benefit of everyone? The first place to focus on is cost. Due largely to our severe illegal immigration problem, California spends more money than any other state in the union clothing, feeding, washing and housing our criminals. Currently, the state spends over $10 billion every year to imprison its citizens. Now, we know you’re all scared of the word “privatization,” but let us preach for a little bit. Right now, plans are in the works for California to spend roughly fifteen billion dollars on a plan to expand and improve its prisons, in light of an already existing $16 billion deficit (yeah, right). But lets take a look over to our favorite criminal-whippin’ sheriff in Arizona: Joe Arpaio. Arpaio is a hard-lined, old-timed badass. Arpaio is responsible for creating “Tent City,” an extension of Arizona’s Maricopa County Jail. Arpaio makes his prisoners wear embarrassing pink outfits (not nearly a new tactic, even in the slightest sense), work their own dog shelter, run a radio station and even participate (voluntarily) in chain gangs. He is even reported to have retorted to inmates complaining of the immense desert heat, “It’s 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn’t commit any crimes, so shut your mouths.” Arpaio does not run a private prison by any means, but since he has taken charge of Maricopa County Jail, the jail’s required funding has plummeted from an annual 18 million dollars to just 3 million. The inmates run his animal shelter and not only do they keep the animals in good health, but they play with them, care for them, and sell them to adopting families.
We are not suggesting that all of America’s jails and prisons subject their prisoners to manual labor and sometimes humiliating practices. We are not even suggesting that the judicial system should treat all non-violent criminal activity any different than criminal activity. All that we are saying is that prisoners are people too. There is no feasible way for an arbitrary policy to be entirely relevant to every case that is presented to every court in our nation. With every circumstance, there is an exception to the rule. What we need is a prison system that takes account of each individual case and that scrupulously monitors the resources that it extinguishes. Until the end of time, there will be a necessity for a system to uphold social stability and enforce basic human rights. But until that system itself becomes human, human rights are about as free as a jailbird.
Works Referenced
(NOTE: Many of he numerous links in this article are NOT included in the list below. We HIGHLY recommend that you view the links not only to supplement the information contained herein, but to advance your knowledge and awareness of this topic as well.)
1.
Warren, Jenifer. One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Ed. Adam Gelb. Spec.
issue of PEW Charitable Trusts 1.1 (2008). 18 Feb. 2009 http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf
2.
The Politics of Punishment: Evaluating Political Explanations of Incarceration Rates
Author(s): Kevin B. Smith
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Aug., 2004), pp. 925-938
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449748
3.
Saturday Morning at the Jail: Implications of Incarceration for Families and Children
Author(s): Joyce A. Arditti, Jennifer Lambert-Shute, Karen Joest
Family Relations, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 195-204
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700270
4.
McShane, Marilyn D. “Effect of Gang Membership on Parole Outcome.” Journal of
Gang Research 10.4 (2003): 25-38.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=201744
5.
Parental Incarceration: Recent Trends and Implications for Child Welfare
Author(s):Elizabeth I. Johnson, Jane Waldfogel
The Social Service Review, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 460-479
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30013095