Americas Prison System - Case Study Example

The Punitive Prison System in America The rate of imprisonment has grown in the United s in such a sustained and dramatic fashion over the past three decades that it has become necessary to begin essays with a statement on “mass” incarceration. By 2006, the rate of incarceration hit 0.1% for women and 0.9% for men, with the total number of prisoners in state and federal prisons slightly exceeding 1.6 million. Larger increases are also seen in the number of persons under correctional supervision. Such include individuals housed in prisons and jails and those living within the community on probate and parole (Alexander and West, 117; and Bonds, 418).The dramatic expansion in the correctional population was majorly the result of a series of sentencing and policy reforms. Key among these reforms were the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, habitual offender laws, truth-in-sentencing statutes, and the abolition of discretionary parole. Moreover, there has been a push towards strict forms of punishment like tougher penalties for younger offenders, radical legislation concerning drug-related crimes and sex, and an increase in punitive facilities. The current status quo in the U.S. prison system needs to be improved to make the system fair so that it can complement the overall process of justice. These changes in the nature and scale of incarceration came alongside rapid changes in the rationales for prison sentencing and crime policies generally. Majority of scholars admit that one of the changes over this period has been the decline of the rehabilitative level: the idea that prisons should serve as houses for reforming inmates and preparing them for a return to society (Bonds, 420). Instead, incapacitation and deterrence has become the explicit goal of prison. This change has been baptized the “culture of control,” “new punitiveness” or “new penology” (Bonds, 422). This paper explores the justification for the need for drastic reforms in the United States’ penal law and prison system with greater attention paid to the introduction of rehabilitation as a method of molding inmates into reproductive people to alleviate recidivism. One possible explanation for the advent of harsh prison sentencing is that the proponents of the rehabilitative ideal failed to provide enough evidence that rehabilitation programs could minimize recidivism. Criminological report findings leading up to the 1970s showed no significant effects of prison treatment through rehabilitative programs. These reports led to the general conclusion that rehabilitating prison inmates do not work at all hence there was no need to introduce reforms in prison sentencing. Other scholars argue that social forces initiated the distrust for rehabilitation. For instance, Martensen ties the decline of rehabilitation to crime increase and a concurrent increase in the distrust of welfare policies (p. 217). In the modern world, the public has less concern for (and great fear of) felons, who are presented as radicalized super-predators unable to be reformed. One result of the decline in advocacy for welfare policies was a shift in balancing of power among the public, legislators and the criminal justice professionals. Instead of experts making criminal justice policies and leaving the implementation role to experts, the new mode of governance focuses on populist and racially coded law and order rhetoric. This new rhetoric matches increased legislation on criminal justice policies (such as mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines, and repeat offender laws) which transferred decision-making power from judges, administrators, and parole boards to legislators and voters. With politicians greatly in control of correctional policies and worried about appearing soft on crime, it becomes harder to continue funding prison programs. Martensen points out the injustices occasioned by mass incarceration. She argues that most victims of mass incarceration are black men and that their physical imprisonment becomes mental imprisonment as well due to their skin color. She uses the term ‘criminal-blackman’ as a public. Black men are the target of law enforcement officers (p. 214). They project the black man as a criminal by virtue of his skin color. She also notes that inequalities are the main cause of crime. No one is born a criminal and, therefore, crime is not a biological trait. The poor find themselves entrapped in the cycle of inequality that affects their life experiences leading to criminal behavior. In poor communities, there are scarce employment opportunities. Such communities have become hot crime areas (Martensen 216). On the other hand, Bonds (2009) is of the opinion that deep poverty and racialized inequality form part of local politics. For instance, the poverty rate in Montana in 2005 was 29%, higher than the national rate of 12.4%. The effects of social abandonment experienced by American Indians in Montana reflected the community’s intense level of poverty and rapid incarceration (Martensen 429). Incarcerated individuals carry a permanent label that stigmatizes them eternally as criminal and displaces them from mainstream society. Once branded a criminal, rights previously available to an individual are reduced, the most significant being the inability to get employment. Mass incarceration does not care about family imprisonments. That happens in most cases as family members may find themselves locked up in prison. The result is a double loss to the rest of the family who have to incur extra costs by visiting their imprisoned loved ones (Martensen, 220). Women are particularly vulnerable. Research shows that the rate of incarceration of women exceeds that of men. However, black women population in prisons is much greater compared to their male counterparts. Black women are already subjects of a society that puts them at the bottom part of the social ladder. Within the prison system, not only are they placed at the bottom, but also considered less than the average inmate. Black women have the stigma of going back to the community where men become heroes and martyrs when they come out of prison whereas women become not only unfit people but also unfit mothers. Black women become trustable no more (Willingham 60). Jacobi (41) highlights how incarcerated women’s plight remains unheeded. He affirms that the public perception of incarcerated women is mostly influenced by television dramas or fictional film, news stories or reality television that converts complex relationships into thirty or so seconds sound bites. Statistics presents another bad image of women locked up since 1990. Over 40% of women experience sexual or physical abuse before incarceration, most of which occur before age eighteen; over 44% in state prisons have less than a high school education, and there has been a 130% rise in the number of children with an incarcerated mother since 1990. These statistics, just like media representations, offer limited understandings of incarcerated women’s identities. So entrenched is the prison system in America that people find themselves imprisoned where they least expect. Smith (167) points out the manner in which criminals are fighting for space to conduct their activities. More so, the drug-addicts and traffickers meet checkpoints wherever they go, from offices to bus stops and airports. Sex offenders find a hard time hiding from officers who are presently on watch at every institution and neighborhood (167). What law enforcement agents neglect are the real issues affecting criminals, which are mostly social in nature. Creating difficult time for criminals in the form of imprisonment and constant hunt for them does not help them at all. Chopping a tree’s stem and branches does not prevent it from sprouting as long as the roots are intact. Deveraux (204) laments how an American prison is a hell on earth. He covers prison life and narrates how inmates suffer in the hands of prison officials. Prison officers have freedom to single out, beat, torture, and frame any inmate who refuses to obey orders. The guards operating the cellblocks and watching over the gun turrets do so with total impunity. There is no system in place to deter the officers from giving threats of violence and intimidating prisoners who refuse to bend low to their apparent sovereign authority. Proper beatings in the administrative segregation units are a common occurrence. Officers in the segregation units descend upon a prisoner for simple crimes like door battering, leaving the inmate to writhe in excruciating pain. The extent of control exercised hourly per day is a psychological horror. Recreational moments for prisoners are limited and often restricted to the cellblock in which a prisoner lives. Consequently, a prisoner sees the same daily and in every meal. Each day is a nightmare. While on the prison yard, any slight incident makes an officer sound an alarm, compelling all prisoners to hit the deck as guards with steel batons rush to calm the situation. The guards always exaggerate their response (Deveraux 216). Rehabilitation in most prisons is nonexistent. The highly taunted vocational rehabilitation classes are no more than dilapidated rooms with ageing equipment. The sole mission of the classrooms seems to be the preparation of the inmates to guard the galley oars, teaching skills that lend support to the prison industry. The tasks enslave prisoners and give them paltry income for the rest of their prison terms (Deveraux 218). One tactic of control used by correctional officers is to target an individual they see as a threat against their authority. The threat may be imaginary or real. The individual will face highly exaggerated rule violation charges and live in the hostile environment of the administration segregation unit whose sole purpose is to disable through psychological and physical torture techniques (Deveraux 224). The American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, National Lawyers Guild and Human Rights Watch are among the few organizations that have raised their voices to oppose the daily torture individuals go through while in American prisons. House (152) gives a detailed analysis of the harshness of the American justice system towards juveniles. She notes that throughout the United States many children get adult sentences and are taken to prisons meant for adults. Close to 3,000 children nationwide, receive life sentences without the likelihood of parole. Children as young as 13 are tried as adults. Many are then sent to prison with little consideration of their age or the circumstances of the offense (p. 152). The Supreme Court banned sentences for children convicted of non-homicide crimes because they are unconstitutional. Courts have to conduct new sentencing hearings and judges must consider a child’s individual characters and life circumstances, among them age and the circumstances of the crime. The Supreme Court stated, “…because of children’s reduced culpability and increased capacity for change, it is not appropriate to sentence children to this harsh penalty (House 160).” Neglect, abuse, community and domestic violence, and poverty imperil many young children. Without effective help and intervention, the children struggle, suffer, and fall into despair and hopelessness. Some teens cannot control the emotional, psychological and social challenges of adolescence, eventually engaging in violent and destructive behavior. Sadly, majority of states ignore the dysfunction that trigger child delinquency and instead subject children to further abuse and victimization in the adult criminal justice system (House 161). Fourteen states do not have minimum age for trying children as adults. Eight year olds have been prosecuted as adults. Other states fixed the minimum age at 10, 12 or 13. Some ten thousand children are locked up in adult prisons and jails each day in America. Children are five times more vulnerable to sexual assault in adult prisons compared to juvenile facilities and they face a higher risk of suicide (House 155). The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution embodies the clause that restrains judges from imposing cruel and unusual punishments on offenders. This clause requires that punishments should be proportionate or commensurate to the offence committed. For instance, a court should not sentence a rapist to death, and neither should the court order sterilization of hardcore criminals or repeat offenders as a measure to prevent their multiplication through reproduction. Such sentences are cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court has overturned several rulings that violate the Eighth Amendment about cruel and unusual punishments (Chin 915). In the year 2002, the Supreme Court ruled on Hope v. Pelzer that Hope’s punishment was cruel and unusual and it violated the Eighth Amendment. Hope, an Alabama prison inmate, had been handcuffed to the restraining bar in 1996. The officers left him without a shirt in the hot sun for seven hours and deprived him of water and toilet breaks for a better part of the day. He suffered pains to his arms and wrists, dehydration, muscle aches and sunburn (Chin 913). Chin’s Review also notes that the Hope case encourages judicial intervention in prison management, which is sometimes essential to protect inmates’ rights (921). The Supreme Court has made decisions on several landmark cases concerning the Eighth Amendment violations by state prison administrations or individual officers. The Supreme Court has defined cruel and unusual punishment and developed separate subjective standards for determining Eighth Amendment violations. For example, the deliberative indifference standard is useful in determining that inmates’ mistreatment was due to prison conditions. The malice standard, on the other hand, is useful in determining that the violation of an inmate’s rights under the Amendment resulted from the use of excessive force, especially during an emergency. This standard was used in Whitley v. Albers, where an inmate was punished in a cruel and unusual manner when he was shot in the leg by a prison guard who was trying to control a prison riot (Chin 919). In another separate case analyzed by the Review (Austin v. Hopper Division), the Alabama prison system’s employment of the hitching post as a method of punishment was held to be unconstitutional (Chin 924). The rise in cases on violation of the Eighth Amendment depicts how the prison systems are so harsh and unbearable. Inmates undergo a lot of trauma in the prison systems and because of this experience, majority of them fail to reform upon release. Instead, they commit the same offences for which they were previously convicted, thereby going back to prison. In short, this is a vicious cycle of in and out of prisons movement by the same individuals. The prison system needs reform accommodating drastic measures geared towards transforming the lives of inmates, thereby making them productive citizens. Rehabilitation as a concept came about in the year 1870 when the National Congress’ Committee of Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline converged in Cincinnati to build a modern penology that would rehabilitate offenders for the main objective of mainstreaming the society upon the release of the inmate. In the late 19th Century, the rehabilitation idea was established. It recognized that crime is the product of an array of social and psychological factors. Therefore, to prevent crime, these social and psychological factors need consideration. The purpose of corrections should be the identification of such conditions and their removal through intensive rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, however, has to be structured and individualized for the needs of each person undergoing the treatment to prove comprehensively dynamic. A person’s behavior is the result of different circumstances and situations and, therefore, the aim of treatment should be on the person and their condition and not the condition of the offense committed (Cullen and Gilbert 108). Rehabilitation is the planned intervention that tries to alter or change whatever aspects cause delinquency (i.e. addiction, interpersonal relationships, behavior, cognitive processes, and attitude) and minimize the likelihood of recidivism. Generally, rehabilitation is used alongside various work and education programs. The success of these programs is calculated by recidivism or the rate at which freed convicts repeat crime (Cullen and Gilbert 147). Admittedly, rehabilitation involves the use a great deal of taxpayers’ money and not all programs are entirely effective. In spite of this, rehabilitation and education in correctional facilities still form an integral part of the American justice system because they significantly reduce the nation’s prison operational expenses, foster the safety of society by minimizing crime and recidivism rates, and give inmates the reason to become productive citizens upon release (Cullen and Gilbert 155). In California for instance, recidivism rate is 70%. For the last three decades, policymakers have stressed punishment rather than rehabilitation. Due to this, California’s prisons now face severe budget issues and recidivism is rising. One Senator Ross Johnson said, “It is time for members of this Legislature, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives, to accept that our prison system is a failure” (Cullen and Gilbert 172). Finally, California policy-makers are realizing the necessity of rehabilitation as a major constituent of criminal construction. Many people believe that getting a job after release is sufficient to keep a criminal from going back to prison. This is not true. A research organization in Washington DC known as the Urban Institute followed 400 former prisoners after their release in the year 2001. Among those who had gotten employment, 18% went back to prison within 13 months. Among those who were unemployed, 33% were convicted again and sent back to prison (Cullen and Gilbert 174). The above statistics emphasize that, while employment reduces the rate of recidivism, the prisoner needs rehabilitation before he can adjust properly to the society and function adequately. Learning new interpretational and vocational skills, gaining self-confidence, and working on addiction recovery are vital components of this concept and must be acknowledged and provided before realizing any progress. Comprehensive rehabilitative programs concentrate on such areas and allow prisoners to see the results of their actions more clearly, hence lessening the possibility of reconviction for another crime (Cullen and Gilbert 148). A study carried out by the Department of Education, tracked 3000 prisoners in Minnesota, Ohio, and Maryland for approximately three years after their release. Among the inmates who actively took part in the education programs, only 21% went back to prison. Among those who did not participate, 31% went back to prison (Cullen and Gilbert 175). If the State can make these programs more accessible to prisoners and provide stronger incentives for participation, the results can be astonishing. It has been established that an inverse relationship exists between recidivism and education levels. The higher the education level, the less the likely a person will be re-arrested or imprisoned. Yet, the challenge has been the implementation of the education programs. According to Alexander and West (119), only 33% of inmates receive educational training before release. However, criticisms suggest that only particular components of education aid in minimizing recidivism. For example, (Cullen and Gilbert 166) established that education in prison is effective at minimizing recidivism when the inmate population has little education at the start, and when the population is subjected to 200 hours of education services. In contrast to American prison systems, Nordic prison systems give higher priority is given to education, which is regarded as a right to incarcerated individuals. Education services are not compulsory but depend on the willingness of the inmate to participate. Prison guards are taught to encourage inmates to further their education. Inmates are given the option to attend school full time, and all levels of education are provided including university degrees. Distance learning is also catered for (Cullen and Gilbert 183). America’s prison system has until today been ineffective in resolving national criminal issues. This paper has looked at some of the factors contributing to this state of events. Lack of better resource planning and contradictory political agenda are conspiring to establish a system where criminals are not rehabilitated and economic prejudice persists. However, progress continues on a number of fronts. Some rehabilitation programs have demonstrated that less expensive and effective solutions do exist. Above all, research demonstrates that solutions do not need more funding, but better decisions on distribution of funds. Most of the resources required to initiate such programs already exist, and can be used at no extra cost to the taxpayer. However, the longer such initiatives remain unfavorable to the public, the more the push needed could take time to mature. Until then, entrepreneurial spirit or the resolve of groups dedicated to finding long-term solutions offer the best vehicles for change. The present view on inmate treatment in the United States holds that increasing punishment decreases crime rates. In reality, however, crime and recidivism rate in the U.S. is higher compared to any other country. Taking into account the relationship between people who are undereducated and incarcerated, there is an obvious need to bring reforms to the current education system. Borrowing from other countries, the U.S. will highly benefit from decreased recidivism by embracing rehabilitation Works Cited Alexander, Michelle and West Cornel. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Fort Myers: The New Press, 2012. Print. Bonds, Anne. "Discipline and Devolution: Constructions of Poverty, Race, and Criminality In The Politics of Rural Prison Development." Antipode 41.3 (2009): 416-438. Chin, Alison. "Hope V. Pelzer: Increasing The Accountability Of State Actors In Prison Systems---A Necessary Enterprise In Guaranteeing The Eighth Amendment Rights Of Prison Inmates." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 93.4 (2003): 913-946. Cullen and Gilbert, Karen. “Reaffirming Rehabilitation.” Waltham: Anderson Publishing, (2012): 147-175 Deveraux, Simon. "Prison: Five Hundred Years of Life Behind Bars." The Historian 2 (2011): 389. House, Rebecca. "Seen But Not Heard: Using Judicial Waiver To Save The Juvenile Justice System and Our Kids." University Of Toledo Law Review 45.1 (2013): 149-179. Jacobi, Tobi. "Speaking Out For Social Justice: The Problems and Possibilities of US Womens Prison and Jail Writing Workshops." Critical Survey 23.3 (2011): 40-54. Martensen, Kayla. "The Price That US Minority Communities Pay: Mass Incarceration and The Ideologies That Fuel Them." Contemporary Justice Review 15.2 (2012): 211-222. Meiners, Erica R. "Never Innocent: Feminist Trouble with Sex Offender Registries And Protection In A Prison Nation." Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 2 (2009): 31. Smith, Caleb. "Spaces of Punitive Violence." Criticism 55.1 (2013): 161-168. Sylla, Mary, Nina Harawa, and Olga Grinstead Reznick. "The First Condom Machine In A US Jail: The Challenge of Harm Reduction In A Law And Order Environment." American Journal Of Public Health 100.6 (2010): 982-985. Willingham, Breea C. "Black Womens Prison Narratives and The Intersection Of Race, Gender, And Sexuality In US Prisons." Critical Survey 23.3 (2011): 55-66. Read More