This past week I started my internship at the New York City Criminal Justice Agency. The two days I worked were a flurry of introductions and way too many names to remember. However, when I met the director of the agency, we had an incredible discussion about the idea of preventative measures for incarcerated prisoners. At the end of our conversation, I walked away with no resolutions, but it sparked my interest into how this type of solution is received by society, and whether or not it is a viable option.
Consider an offender who consistently beats his wife and children. He is arraigned and released on bail, and released back into society with the chance of him committing an even more heinous crime against his family…or possibly he might have just learned his lesson. In order to protect society, is it infringing upon an offender’s rights to have him locked up on the off chance that he might commit a crime again?
As a member of society, I can fully support locking up a person who harms other people. However, if I was in that person’s shoes, I would never want to be locked up in jail unnecessarily. So how can we solve this? Can preventative measures reduce the number of offenses that occur in our city? Or are we putting a person’s liberty and freedom at stake? But what about the government’s duty to protect society from harm? Each question is answered by a million more questions.
Before starting my post, I reread the comments from last week and Professor Waterston’s comment really struck a chord with me. By looking at the political-economical perspective and thinking in terms of the larger society, perhaps preventative measures are the way to go. On the flip side, the very first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is “…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom…” Where do we draw the line? Are ankle bracelets that track the offender’s every move, yet release him back to society a fair compromise? Do daily phone calls and a detailed log of every move give the offender enough freedom without compromising his liberty? How about house arrest? Should we even be considering a compromise? Is the answer to this an obvious no-brainer?
There are no conclusions that I’ve come up with that satisfactorily solve this conundrum. I understand the motivation behind both perspectives of this debate, kind of like wanting to have my cake and eat it too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I loved your post because we as a society dont have the answers, and whether or not we should trust to release an individual that beat his wife. In my internship C.E.O im constantly hearing their life stories, and they all fall under a common ground. This common ground was that their illegal behavior started at an early age. Most of these individuals were either raised in a single home, foster home, or neglected. I am not eliminating those ex offenders that came from a sturdy home. However most of them did fall under the categories I described above. I feel that recidivism rates to change lies at the hands of our youths. As a society we should start initiating more programs that promote non violence, or even keep them off the streets doing productive things. We as a society fail to put ourselves in others shoes. Seeing it in others viewpoint is a start in the building of a community
From an educational perspective...
I've been working with elementary and middle school students for the past few years- I worked with the "bad kids".
There was this one second grader who was particularly "bad" (he taught me how to pick a lock.. I'm serious) He would have conversations with the floor, completely ignore adults who spoke to him, shake things (and people), run out of class... We thought there were some serious mental health issues going on for this kid.
Turns out, he couldn't read. He thought school was too hard, so he found ways to not have to participate.. and it worked.
For him, things are looking up. But what if no one had stepped in?
I worked with a seventh grader who read on a third grade level and couldn't do elementary school math. His coping mechanism was the same- if you make the teacher mad, you won't have to feel stupid.
By seventh grade, its a lot harder to undo the damage years of feeling stupid does to the desire to learn.
He's already been arrested, and the gang he's with makes him feel worthy and smart and talented in a way his teachers don't..
If we want to see incarceration rates change, I agree that we need to start young.
This is all so interesting to me, as your teacher and as a parent! My older son holds the pencil in a funny way -- teachers and aides have been trying to correct this since pre-K. My younger son tells him the other day, "you have to correct this now because by 7th grade all your educational habits will be permanent." So somewhere out there is some study showing that all hope is lost after 7th grade.
Seriously, though. This seems to take us back to Frederick Douglass, where his journey of personal and political emancipation began with reading and education. And so, the question that I'm going to add to this already interestng mix is: isn't it all about education? Shouldn't we forget about almost every other system/institution/department and just focus on top-notch education? Wouldn't that cure all the problems that we have after-the-fact solutions for? (Why) Is this too simplistic?
I love this blog system and I hate it too!! I love it because so many critical issues are being raised, and I hate it because it's so hard to pick one aspect of the many things being said and try to engage just that. I don't know where to start....
But I'll try. To Professor Reitz, I would argue that, in my view, it isn't "all about education." Even as education is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition. "Education" is in a context--and in our society, that context is an uneven playing field--a society that is structurally unequal (unequal in the sense of access, benefits, privilege, opportunity etc), so education alone can't equalize everything. This is not to say that "education" is not essential. It is. That Frederick Douglass triumphed over all obstacle is the exception that proves the rule.
Renee's entry is so important because what it shows (again, in my view) is the suffering that results from malign neglect--and here again, I see that neglect not just in terms of or within the private domains of family life, but in terms of social malign neglect: who is left out of? who is made to feel stupid, and why? We know it is far more "cost-effective" (not just financially cost-effective but socially cost-effective in the sense of "safety") to address the real, actual needs of vulnerable children (such as those described by Renee; and with the kinds of programs described by Elizabeth) rather than institutionalize them (in prisons, in gangs, in hospitals) but we don't do it. Why not? What interests are being served by NOT addressing the psychological, emotional and material needs of our society's most vulnerable?
Has anyone heard of or read the book "Learning to Labor" by Paul Willis? The subtitle is: "How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs." This book goes a long way towards giving us some answers the kinds of questions that haunt me. Here is the link to google books so you can get a taste of what Willis says.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=3zmVaLrGIDEC&dq=learning+to+labor,+paul+willis&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=7fr4mv0nxQ&sig=PMpRBmcWLmScAHZFrR-Lmr7zjPE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR5,M1
Ridhi, I love your statement saying “each question is answered by a million more questions.” This is the case with most criminal justice issues. Preventative measures make me think of the tools that are used for risk assessments- and how the tools are so varied and often based on false notions of predictors of risk. Society at large is generally so supportive of anything that seemingly keeps them safe from criminals, which includes preventative measures. It is hard to say that preventative measures work- there is no empirical data because it is impossible to measure the acts a person might have committed had she/he been released. I do believe there are some offenders who must remain confined, but there are countless others who could potentially be dealt with in more effective ways. Where is the balance? I do not know, but education plays a huge part in finding the answer. Educating society is just as important as educating youth who are at risk for offending as well as current offenders. Society must be taught about the criminal justice system, the effects of mass incarceration, and the harsh realities facing released offenders. Education will help society support effective policies (which may or may not include preventative measures) rather than supporting policies out of fear. I think education will help us approach a balance between protecting society and affording citizen’s their rights.
Ridhi brings up the great point that there are no concrete answers regarding what to do with offenders. At my internship at the Legal Action Center, a major component of their research is aimed at improving the parole systems. Recommendations range everywhere from changing the atmosphere of the parole waiting rooms to completely re-organizing everything that we know to be parole.
Parole is a pressing issue today because so many offenders return to prison not for committing another offense, but from violating some technical rule of their parole. As of now, we are all too willing to send an offender back to jail or prison for fiddling with his ankle band. But where is the balance?
According to Michael Jacobson, the director of the Vera institute of Justice, "The problem with this rationale is that no extant research demonstrates any connection between rule-breaking behavior of the kind involved in technical violations and future crime."
So not only do we need to start young, we also must start amending what is already in place. Since there is an infinite amount of ways that this can be done, where so we start? I love what Amanda said about "supporting policies out of fear", for I feel that very accurately describes what we do to people on parole. Education is an essential element in changing societies attitude towards offenders, most whom are not violent.
Indeed this is a tough issue to tackle, considering that recidivism rate has snow-balled out of control. I agree with professor Waterston that there are many factors to consider, such as education, equal opportunity etc. when trying to find a solution for such a problem.
Let’s start with education for a moment. We all can agree that education increases access to better opportunities. If this is true, then why create a zoning school system that confines under-privilege children to their impoverish neighborhood schools? It is evident that if you live in an affluent zone, you will go to better schools and likewise for poor zones. Take the parks where children play for example. I have gone to a poor neighborhood where most of the parks where children are to play and be stimulated have simply one slide and a couple of benches. On the same note, I have gone to affluent neighborhoods, such as Park Slope in Brooklyn, and there the parks for children of the same age have sprinklers, swings, sand boxes, slides, musical instruments and the list goes on. I would imagine the schools are reflective of the example I just gave. I understand that some communities are pushing for charter schools; lets see how this new system will level the Plainfield.
These factors that I have pointed out is related to recidivism in the sense that if children feel stupid because of lack of education or simply feeling that no one cares, then they are more likely to be delinquent as Renee exemplified in her blog. These are the same children who seek negative attention in order to hide their deficiencies. These are the same children who eventually end up in prisons.
Does the American society have a conscience? I think this is a fair question to ask, since American is considered one of the most affluent countries in the world. But as Martin Luther King once said, “we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt”.
America has great potential, but until it takes care of its citizens equally in every way, greatness will continue to slip through her grasp.
I agree with much of what is being expressed. It seems that early preventative measures, especially through education, would be very successful.
We adopt prevention policies in so many other aspects of society, such as medicine. Unfortunately, these circumstances involve individuals that are stigmatized. But, putting a relatively small amount of money and energy into education and community programs for children can go a long way. There is also a sense of moral responsibility as civic-minded adults to preserve the innocence and well-being of children before it is too late.
Finally, it seems logical that some authority would look into these issues. With a problem of this magnitude (incarcerating so many, making victims out of countless other, costing the state) someone should look into the cause. Once the causes are identified any actions taken to alleviate them would be preventative measures.
Ridhi, your point about answers raise a million other questions is absolutely correct. My answer to this dilemna is, we must look at societal problems through a multidisclipinary lense. When we try to solve societal problems, there comes a point where we find ourselves in a new zone completely; For example, in dealing with preventing incaraceration, we find ourselves not only dealing with the education, community, environment, race and class of the person. Plus, how can we forget that our answers of incarcerating-the criminal justice system-itself is not perfect. We must understand that there are many things that effect the issue we are dealing with and that are all interrelated. Hence, I introduce my last point-cooperation, communication and building strong relationships between the government, law enforcment, social adovactes and social advocacy groups is a must. Otherwise, many preventitive measures fall short becuause somewhere the link is broken.
I think we would all love to have answers to this post questions... In other words, I think we ask ourselves “how much is too much”. We see and hear about all these people being in and out of jail, and it seem that our society is unable to stop the process. How can we evaluate who should be released and reintegrated in society and who should be held in jail? I would like to mention the tragedy of Petit family. This hideous crime was committed by two ex-offenders, released by the Board of Pardons and Parole and considered by the system minimum security offenders, with a minimal violence history. They were both under supervision by the board and they still committed the crime. Their signature in the log was not enough to prevent the crime.
I believe Rousseau said in the Social Contract, that people binded by this contract gave up their own interest for the interest of many. Therefore I will interpret the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by providing freedom to all people that respect our freedom. It is still hard to draw a line and place people in only two categories. Nothing in life is just black and white. We all migrate around the gray area, one with many questions and few answers.
Think about how many of us would take a free subway ride or leave a store without paying if we would not be afraid getting caught and being punished! It all starts with education, but goes beyond it. To stay away from crime people need motivation. Were they can get it if they don’t know how to write, they develop no skills and are force to provide for their families? More than that, how many of them are born in families in which at least one parent or brother is incarcerated? In these cases society is forced to do something, even though its methods are not the most desirable.
It certainly can be overwhelming picking up the threads of so many important discussions! I will just comment on a couple of things, both of them regarding the role of research in making determinations about where to focus our efforts in crime reduction. Amanda is right, preventitive detention cannot be proven effective because we are unable to measure crimes that were not committed. Regardless of this fact, many states have followed Washington state down the path of locking up sex offenders (in supposed treatment facilities) after they had already served their criminal sentences. In the 20th and 21st centuries, "sex offenders" have replaced witches as the big bogeyman, despite the fact that over 95% of sexual abuse and rape takes place in the home, at the hands of someone the victim knows (and often loves). Thus, we have to really examine the social context in which preventitive meaures are so often taken.
The other comment I wanted to make regards types of early prevention: education, therapy, social skills training, etc. Research does support the efficacy of multi-modal interventions over any single type of help. People need a variety of services at any given juncture; those of you who come to The Castle will hear more about how the Fortune Society works to reintegrate former prisoners through multi-modal support.
Finally, in my own research with violent felons, I found that child abuse and neglect was perhaps the most important factor in their trek toward adult violence. The research of others demonstrates that having a visiting nurse come to the homes of new mothers for the first six months of the babies' lives, dramatically reduces (by over 50%!) this potent antecedent to crime.
Post a Comment