© KAHH 1990
There are people who constantly advocate the sparing use of incarceration and prison reform that focuses on rehabilitation. Are these people soft on crime, or merely soft in the head? What about the victims? How can they be left out of the equation?
Many crimes for which people are incarcerated are "victimless" in the sense that the offender has violated a law that proscribes certain personal activities ranging from sexual acts between and among consenting adults to the use of prohibited substances like marijuana or heroin. Indeed, more than 60% of the federal prison population has been committed for low-level drug-related offenses such as the possession of relatively small amounts of marijuana. The “victims” of these crimes seem to be the perpetrators, and those who pay taxes to incarcerate them.
More to the point, our society, as a whole, insists that people who are held in detention be treated in a humane fashion. (It is probably not a coincidence that our Constitution and laws are in accord.) In this regard, we are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the world's civilized nations, virtually all of which are signatories to international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. The law of our country prohibits inhumane conditions of confinement, including the infliction of unnecessary pain or the deprivation of life's basic necessities, including the need for human interaction.
Criminal penalties are harsher in this country than anywhere else, as evidenced by a per capita prison population second to none. There are about 2.4 million people in prison (costing the tax payers about $9 billion per year), and roughly another 5.3 million under some form of restraint imposed by the criminal justice system (probation, parole, house arrest, etc.). Our current correctional system does not do very well at correcting illegal behavior – about 60% of the people released from prison return within 3 years.
We all feel great compassion for people who are victimized by criminals, and we bear a great deal of fear, anger, and resentment toward those who would intentionally harm others. As a result, a spate of legislation (and even some state constitutional amendments) provide a wide array of rights for victims of crime, ranging from notification of key court dates, to notice of parole hearings and the release of offenders, to large pools of money appropriated by legislators, state bar associations, and others to compensate crime victims, and any number of programs and services for crime victims.
Victims groups have successfully advocated the criminalization of an expanding range of conduct and increasingly lengthy prison terms. So called “alternatives” to incarceration such as day reporting centers, treatment programs, and community service, have been used, not so much to divert people from going to prison as to punish minor and first-time offenders.
So no, we haven't forgotten about crime victims, nor should we.
But the government can’t guarantee that we will never be touched by crime, no matter how many laws are passed, and no matter how many people we lock-up. And the rights and prerogatives of crime victims do not relieve us of providing prisoners humane conditions (including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and health care for serious medical needs). Incidentally, prisoners have practically no legal right to anything more in the way of comforts or amenities.
With more than 600,000 prisoners being released every year, we would do well to ensure that prisoners are treated with basic human dignity. We might even go so far as to help prepare them to lead law-abiding lives by inculcating shared societal values and fundamental skills that will allow them to make a living. We could even give former offenders a chance to start over once they have satisfactorily completed their punishment. Or we can contend with circumstances that too often prevail - releases into the community of prisoners who have spent years in solitary confinement under conditions that would not be tolerated by the SPCA. The former approach is much to be preferred, especially because some of those who are to be released will be our neighbors. Perhaps such an approach will diminish the number of people who are victimized in the future.
Other articles: Outrageous phone rates devastate families
Comments
It makes sense that prisoners who are demeaned, treated poorly and then blacklisted (such as sex offenders) are far more likely to re-offend. The idea isn't to banish criminals to the netherworld; it's to create functioning members of society out of them!
Mr. Hamden, your words warm my heart. Thank you for this beautiful article. I similarly believe that how we treat our inmates plays a large factor in how successful their reintegration into society will be. When inmates are deprived of human contact, deprived of family relations, spoken to as if they are second-class citizens, and punished for every petty, non-criminal behavior while incarcerated, and forced to live in overcrowded, tense conditions, then we are reinforcing their habits and tendencies toward crime, violence,disrespect, and loneliness. But if we lead by positive example by providing a nurturing environment, surrounded by respectful staff, positive reinforcement, rehabilitative therapy, and education... then we can expect to see the fruits of our positive efforts upon the inmates' releases. I wish our society soon will soon learn to replace our vengeful attitude (caused by our egos/fears) with an attitude of unity where we wish everyone to improve and achieve success
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!