Hope….
How much of it can one hold onto when one is constantly falling in and out of bureaucracies that condemn us to failure. Even those that truly do attempt to help the individual, agencies like Vera and all it’s spin offs that try to assist those who always get forgotten, can only but compartmentalize the issues and hone in on it that way. I would like to begin this discussion by suggesting a more holistic approach. I know this was mentioned in class by Jennifer Bryan, and she mentioned a few of the problems that said approach faced, but I think Vera itself should be more holistic and interconnected, just like the FBI, DEA, Bomb squad, the local police and other departments of security have some degree of an open communication in order to facilitate things, so should Vera to improve the level of helpfulness it can offer. Maybe a separate agency can manage that and the idea of a networking- mentoring system for CEO participants.
Although the concept of offering the participants of CEO with the opportunity to network with fellow CEO’s, employers, students and other people that otherwise might not be traditionally present in their immediate circle of assets sounds rather exciting, it does face a lot of obstacles. Time being a major problem as many of these people will not be able to find the time, the transportation or the mends necessary to attend. Others will simply not be inspired to go and might be well satisfied by just having a job.
On that note, I would like to introduce a point Professor Waterston brought up after the seminar when I told her I was not sure what to write about. She said that what moved her most, was that the people coming out of prisons and enrolled in programs like that of CEO are almost expected to be grateful for dead end jobs that are strenuous and monotonous not only physically but emotionally and mentally as well. “Is that really all I can look forward to?” asked Professor Waterston as she imagined and felt what many in that situation must feel. These feelings and thoughts were inspired in part by a five minute video clip on “cooperative community development in Cleveland based on Mondragon principles” that she had seen before. http://www.blip.tv/file/2749165
Professor Waterston said she felt strongly supportive for an option such PEP (prisoner entrepreneurship program) where many ex offenders that have now been released can work on realizing and creating their own business where they are or share ownership. In all reality however, how many people can be given such an opportunity? How many can we expect to save or help? I personally am still stuck on a moral dilemma. A friend told me Thursday after class (although rather extreme) as we were discussing this that why should someone who has committed a crime against society, such a rape be allowed to serve time, get out, and attempt to continue their life as if nothing happened? The victim will never be the same and that person he or she was before the rape is forever gone. Why should the rapist receive a second chance? Now I know that CEO participants are not rapists or high risk offenders, but they still committed a crime and are now forgiven, and given a job, which means it’s taking a job from a law abiding person. At the same time, why be so punitive and illogical and not give someone with a teenage mistake that got caught a second chance as he or she might very well not be that same person either? What I’m trying to get at is the risk of reforming the system from a punitive one, that might be quite extreme and cruel and even corrupt to a treatment system where the idea of repentance is completely gone and treats the inmates as medical patients that can be cured and rehabilitated. What does that say, if anything, about the natural goodness of people as opposed to just a medicated, taught goodness? Some people are just bad! And who benefits from either system at the end of the day!?
All that aside, CEO, Vera and the other agencies all have great potential to pragmatically improve society; after all, it’s all about the money and efficiency when dealing with the issues of a system that is so overpopulated. Yet we cannot forget our empathy and passion to genuinely and truly help others, which always brings me back to Herb Sturz, who found the balance between pragmatism, efficiency and a priority to help others in a way that only a “kind of genius” could do. It is very inspiring to follow his footsteps while I mesh out my own conflicting feelings of morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I know that sometimes trying a holistic approach may be overwhelming, but it opens more doors for opportunities and offers more ways to help people. Communication can be the starting point of this holistic approach and then evolve to a more helpful system. Making a separate agency would be a good idea or perhaps creating a sector within the existing agencies that basis its work on mentoring and bridging communication between other agencies. I think that communications sector of these agencies should adopt this method of bridging communication between agencies. In other words, the communications sector knows about the agency as a whole and what they need to further succeed, so they bridge a connection with another agencies communication sector and help each other out. A monthly newsletter letting everyone know what each company is doing and what they could use to further succeed, it doesn’t have to be public it could be between agencies and funders.
I believe that Professor Waterston’s point is upsetting. Is it not bad enough that these people spent time in jail, but now we have to place them into dead end jobs? By doing this we are affecting their mentality, if prison hasn’t already destroyed their self confidence, and we further encourage them to commit crimes since these jobs do not provide much. Everyone makes mistakes, this is what makes us human. Sometimes we learn, we evolve to a better person or we digress and continue are ID like needs. We need to become a nation that helps each other out, not everyone can pick themselves up by their bootstraps. This all reminds me of Obama’s presidential acceptance speech. “But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” In all honestly everyone is driven by their own self-interest, of making themselves better and more productive. But if we keep heading down this narrow path we are going to all crash head on into each other. Instead by creating programs to rehabilitate and to show someone how they can be a productive source of society and not a parasite would be ideal. I know that ideal isn’t reality and not everyone would agree that a rapist should have a second chance in life, but wouldn’t helping someone change so that they don’t commit this crime again be better then a continuous stream of punishment? Just like an agency has to potential to improve, people do to.
I love that fact that Professor Waterston placed herself in the shoes of ex-prisoners who usually end up with the least desirable types of employments with little to no opportunities to move up or no employment at all. I feel that in any situation, before we find ourselves passing judgment on others we must be able to place ourselves in those individuals’ shoes. This is an action that I feel is essential for our everyday life as we do not know where we will end up tomorrow. I too am supportive of the Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program, because I feel it is successful at rehabilitating ex-prisoners also, I feel that in our society it is essential to give second chances for humanity’s sake. Except as Marling said “Some people are just bad!” and in reality learn how to work through the glitches in the system taking advantage of all they can.
Without a doubt CEO makes a change in our society and will possibly continue to make a change for many more years to come. It is kind of like the no child left behind program; where it can be difficult to get children to that high standard but possible through the establishment of measurable goals. Nothing is easy in life and no one said that rehabilitating ex-prisoners was going to be either or that their road isn’t going to be a bumpy one but at least offering the opportunity to rehabilitate is what truly makes a difference one step at a time.
The whole time during our class on Thursday, all I could think is that these prisoners, regardless of what they had done, had already served their sentence. They had done the time. Why were they still being punished for their crime? When a judge sentences a person to say 10 years in prison, does that sentence automatically include facing stigma and hatred for the rest of their life and a terrible life after prison where they likely will have no home, few means to support themselves by, and little to no job opportunities? Why isn't the prison sentence enough? When will the person have finished paying for their crime or serving their sentence? I think the way the system is set up so that the people coming out of prisons and jails are more than likely to fail is horrible--we are essentially punishing people for their entire lives.
Even some of the most basic jobs ask prospective employees whether they have been convicted of a crime and when you check yes, it usually doesn't ask you to explain the what or why. With a criminal record and usually minimal education, it becomes nearly impossible to find a job and so it is not surprising that many ex-convicts re-offend.
We are setting them up to fail and forcing them to rely on a life of crime.
Of course, the ex-convicts must be ready to turn their life around too. This NY Times article talks about many of the difficulties agencies face with getting ex-convicts jobs and keeping them there: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/nyregion/27excons.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
I think it will take many steps: removing many of the barriers stopping ex-convicts from getting jobs, training employers to be sensitive, training employees on conflict resolution, and much more.
Although there’s a law that protects them against discrimination in the workplace and during the hiring process, its occurs; ex-offenders know it & we know it. One of the men at CEO asked me whether or not I would hire him after seeing his record (mostly weapons possession charges) – I answered honestly that I would, and I WOULD, if he was qualified otherwise. Then he asked if I would hire him if another man his age came in with the same credentials and interviewed just as well but had no prior convictions. For myself, that would be a moral dilemma. I’d be faced with the opportunity to act on what I believe in (2nd chances) and then I’d be giving him a one-up based on his criminal record. Employment is scarce these days; the other guy with no history may have been working just as hard until that interview to get a job. If I were put in the situation, I definitely would need to know about the conviction and what he learned from the experience. I would be interested in the reason for the charge – I think it’s natural for the employer to have that curiosity. An interviewee/potential employee who goes on the defensive at the presence of these inquiries would turn me off. Even though it’s easy to understand how it would be difficult for them to talk about their convictions, history can’t be erased
In discussing whether or not the jobs CEO participants end up with are “all they have to look forward to,” consider the alternative. People didn’t employ ex-offenders for years on account of their conviction. Agencies who seek to employ offenders are not trying to hit reset and fool us into thinking we’ve been making completely irrational assumptions for years. They want to take the current mentality and slowly shift it from ex-prisoner to asset of my company. A lot of these men with drug backgrounds are hard workers! From what I’ve learned, it does take a lot of time management and people skills to keep a drug business going.. so the skills are there they just need to be redirected. That’s why CEO gives employers the opportunity to see how individuals with criminal histories work, under payment of CEO first. Then the employer gets to know the participant and become desensitized to his stereotype of the formerly incarcerated who sold drugs because he was “too lazy to get a real job.” I’m an advocate of holistic anything because we’re whole humans, but these programs are not going to change opinions overnight, so we can’t expect people (employers, co-workers, the general public) to even confront their negative biases until proof of goodness is obvious for so long they forget they ever had them.
Now to return to the idea that CEO participants don’t enjoy the jobs they end up with, think of how many people are 40 years old without criminal records & don’t enjoy the job they’ve been at for 20 years. The ability to find employment doing something you enjoy is a rarity and a blessing. It takes a lot of soul searching, fear facing and an extraordinary amount of intrinsic motivation. If just ‘getting the job’ isn’t enough, they are beginning a resume. I see 18 – 25 year olds come in every week with stories of people they’ve known in the program and after seeing their friend getting up and going to work each day, making something decent with their lives; that’s all they want too… I’ve heard it 20 or so times and Jen said it in seminar; I’m really starting to believe it
Professor Waterston’s video about the Evergreen Cooperatives initiative reminded me of Michael Moore’s documentary “Capitalism: A love story” in which he states that the only way we can break out of this capitalistic society is by engaging all in cooperative ownership where you as an employee work towards the wealth of the company that is shared with amongst yourself and your fellow employees.
As Amanda mentioned about having an independent agency within Vera that would work with the other agencies in an attempt to connect each agency with each other to network is a great idea. I believe that Vera’s spin off agencies would benefit greatly by having this sort of network where they can share ideas, build relationships, etc.
I agree with you Neethu that our system is set up in a way that it is doomed for failure. The stigma that a former prisoner carries around after they have served their sentence will stay will them for the rest of their life. For example, when a person is stopped by the cops for some sort of suspicion, the first question they cops will ask is “Have you ever been arrested before?” and if they say yes, then they will automatically assume they’re doing something wrong and start looking for what that may be.
I believe that employers and employees should both be trained on sensitive issues that they may encounter on the job that would teach them how to act in those situations. At my job we had to watch a video during orientation about sexual harassment. The video was entertaining and it gave scenarios that you may encounter on the job and how to act accordingly. I noticed that after orientation everybody acted so differently – people were more serious and a lot of jokes that they used to say they didn’t attempt anymore because they were afraid of being accused of ‘sexual harassment’.
I feel like I am witnessing a great internal struggle among you all this week, one catalyzed by Prof. Waterston’s effortless demonstration of empathy. (We struggled with a definition of empathy last week; Waterston’s plaintive wail provided a dictionary’s worth of them.) What is fair? What is just? Is this all I can look forward to?
I have spent the last couple of decades trying to educate myself about
how to encourage curiosity, hope, and reflection among populations where such thoughts and feelings are scarce resources. I feel a strong personally obligation, when I work with such people, to hold hope for those who have none. While it does seem on one level cruelly adversative to encourage people to dream and then hand them a broom, I would argue that the problem isn’t the broom but the idea that their worth is equivalent somehow to it. As Danielle points out, many, maybe most, people toil at thankless work that doesn’t inspire them. Yet, when inquisitiveness can be cultivated, when relationships can be consolidated, where esteem is fortified through other avenues of respect, and especially when education is an ongoing option, people can derive a sense of meaning and purpose, even when their work life stinks. So it isn’t the broom, it is all the baggage that accompanies it.
As Neethu pointed out, a criminal conviction-even for a minor crime-can be tantamount to a life sentence. We have overcriminalized so much behavior, Harvey Silvergate argues in his new book (quoted in today’s NY Times) that “all Americans violate the criminal law every day, meaning prosecutors can indict anyone at all.” As we have discussed in class, communities of color are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, particularly for minor drug offenses. But none of us should feel immune from the power of the state to impose these “life sentences” and the neon sign those so designated are forced to wear.
The single greatest legal issue we should all be working on is the absolute expungement of all non-violent criminal convictions after a suitable period of time has passed. There is absolutely no reason that someone, five years after completing his/her sentence, should still have to introduce themselves as an ex-con, as I have written in “Overturning convictions: Rewriting the criminal narrative” (a paper presented earlier this year at the International Psychohistory Association conference.) This scarlet lettering only perpetuates criminality, as it precludes full social integration.
The subject matter discussed in class on Thursday seems to implicitly incorporate a substantial amount of ideas that have been lingering throughout the semester. Marling is absolutely right in her analysis of the inability of agencies to incorporate a more holistic approach. Indeed it may be a financial issue that creates this separation but aside from the obvious what would it take for us to make this change? Piggy backing on your example of the FBI, DEA, and U.S Marshals; Maybe a huge catastrophic happening in our criminal justice system comparable to that of September 11th (which fostered some type unity in our law enforcement entities) would be the catalyst to a more cooperative approach although I couldn’t imagine what that would be. But, even more perplexing is imagining what an ex offender is expected to do if not re-entering into society (a question your friend should enlighten us to) and further more what the real goal is within our prison system? However I do think he or she is inadvertently on to something. When we mention a “ more holistic approach” we automatically jump to programs created for post criminality. I think your friend’s view of our criminal justice system is one that we can only adopt when the quality of life of the general pre criminal population is less disparaging from that which society deems as the American dream. A more holistic and in turn preventative approach in the uplifting of our social underclass would transform our criminal justice system in ways we couldn’t imagine. One of the questions our blog poses this week is, as I understand why should individuals come out and be placed into remedial jobs? Well, because they had the same or lesser going in, no? What other jobs can the majority of them get with the level of education they’ve acquired? Asks your self, what are the underlying confounds in their inability to attain a higher level of functioning? Neethu said “When a judge sentences a person to say 10 years in prison, does that sentence automatically include facing stigma and hatred for the rest of their life and a terrible life after prison where they likely will have no home, few means to support themselves by, and little to no job opportunities? Why isn't the prisons sentence enough? When will the person have finished paying for their crime or serving their sentence?”
That was beautiful. Neethu this person whom ever they are is in an overwhelming majority of cases living with a stigma even before conviction had meager living arrangements, means and opportunity to support them selves. How can you repay a crime you’ve been committing your whole life? They were sentenced for a crime they had no choice but to. That’s the crime of being born underprivileged. I retract that, poor. Maybe a person who has served a lengthy prison sentence should introduce them self as a convicted felon, but what should change is our depiction of who that person is?
When people break the law they are punish according to the severity of their crime. After a person completes their sentence they should be free to move on with their lives. The purpose of our criminal justice system is to rehabilitate, punish and to reintroduce individual into society. However, it is apparent that the punishment for criminals is lasting a lifetime. Why are ex-convicts deny jobs that they are qualified for simply due to their record? If they already paid their dues to society why does society continue to discriminate against them? (I am referring to low level offenders) I think it is unfair for employees to considered a persons criminal record when deciding who to give a job. The person with the record has already paid for their mistake why are employees allow to perpetuate the punishment?
I must also say that this week's reading regarding the racial tension at the work place bother me. I couldn't understand why but I guess that the bad stigma that is attached to immigrants seem to be supported by the findings in the article. Immigrants devaluate our labor because they work more for less. I personally think that ex-convicts blame part of their problems on immigrants because they are an easy target. Instead of blaming the structure of society for their social staggering it becomes easy to blame immigrants. I fear that attacking each other will not lead to anything fruitful.
Ana I agree with your feelings towards the issues with the immigrants and the conflicts with the ex offenders wholeheartedly probably because of our background.
Amanda, the idea of bridging the agencies communication is a definitely a great one! You've definitely defined it better.
Neethu and Vaughn... I am still struggling with this... I mean, yes their prison sentence should be enough punishment and the stigma should not be carried after their sentence is up... But how can we really know that they have learned from their mistakes and that they truly have "repented" and "changed" into a "better" person? We can't. As a matter of fact, how does the law even determine what amount of time is appropriate to incarcerate someone in the "hope" that they will change. Sure the time cannot be cruel, unusual or excessive, but who or how can one even determine how long it takes on an individual level to regret one's action and learn from those "mistakes"? Especially in a developing urban culture where going to prison is just part of life and something to brag about as a representation of one's manhood? If anomie is real and a culture is developing in which there is no respect or fear for the law, if they truly do not care about getting locked up and do not see it as punishment or something bad, then 1. how can you even rehabilitate this person and 2. why would they even deserve it?!
And about the stigma, well African Americans, latinos and every other race for that matter has been stigmatized one way or another. How about we focus on overcoming that which is more outrageous than the stigma against an ex convict which is more understandable? Im not saying that the way ex offenders are treated is fair, nor do I condone the stigma.... but I do understand it. Danielle makes an excellent point... who would you choose? I think I’d hire the applicant with the clean record.
I hope you will forgive my great delay in posting. It started with a paper I needed to write for the anthropology meetings and ended with the annual Thanksgiving bash I host every year at my home. I'm now trying to regroup in the aftermath.
I think all of you who posted really hashed out a lot of complex issues related to the dilemmas in this time of prisoner reentry where, as President Travis notes,
"they all come back."
It seems a matter of enlightened self-interest that we provide opportunities for people to become not only gainfully employed but to have a sense of hopefulness for the future, and a sense of belonging to the society of which they are a part. Wouldn't it be good for all parties? a safer society?
Of course, the realities of our capitalist economic system make that particularly difficult since the job marketplace is competitive, and as we all know, really bad at this particular time with national unemployment rates rising and rising and rising.
In a better world, we might follow the motto attributed to Marx: "From each according to his/her abilities, to each according to his/her needs."
But until that time, we are all struggling to manage in the system in which we live. So Danielle, if she were in a position to hire folks, would likely look for the individual who best fits the position, who is best qualified. And that would make sense. Of course it doesn't address all the inequities that are part of who becomes qualified. Of course, individual talent, skill, ambition are all part of the picture but those individual characteristics operate in a larger context of inequality which is why we keep going around in circles on these issues.
That does not mean to say that every single person in prison is a wonderful human being or would be if they had been in different circumstances. But it does mean that the probabilities are great that a pretty sizable proportion might have seen very different life outcomes were it not for their class/race/ethnic social positionality.
I think what gets us tripped up in "what to do" for individuals and groups are the contradictions that result from those structural forces (the economic system; labor stratification, etc). This is what gets us going in circles.
And it's why I think that co-op model is so promising. If you're working the laundry assembly line in the linen cleaning factory AND you OWN a piece of the business pie, wouldn't that make a big difference in your outlook and your life? Then you're not just selling your labor power to another, but working that line for yourself and others in the co-op. You wouldn't be alienated from your labor--you'd have a stake.
Marling has made interesting points throughout her discussion, yet I stand along with Danialle's argument of the conflict in the hiring process of ex-cons. If I were an employer interviewing individuals( ex-offenders and law abiding citizens, I would definately hire an ex-offender if he or she had all the qualifications for the job. In many times, an ex-offender has the greater advantage for he or she has been throught a sour experience of imprisonment for wrongdoings. Mostlikely, the ex-offender will now have a broader and wiser view of the consequences of getting involved in criminal acts, therefore, he will, in the long run, be a valuable asset for the company. However, we also face the conflict of morality and ethics. When we hire an ex-offender, we are taking the job away from an individual that may have never been in prison and may also have all the qualifications for the job. The law abiding citizen may have dedicated alll his life to put his resume together and gain all the experience necessary for the job, yet we are depriving him of the opportunity because we want to show society that we have empathy and compassion for everyone, ex-offenders or not.
As Danielle mentioned, the individual who asked if she would hire him after knowing his convictions asked the same question to me. I said that if he had all the qualifications necessary for the job and if I knew he would be a valuable asset for my company that of course I would hire him. However, I did mentioned to him that as the employer I would interview him in a more datailed manner. I would want to know all aspects of his convictions before hring him. The i9nterview itself would be longer and with more specific questions. As I value the efforts of individuals who have made mistakes in the past and have been able to getb themselves back on their feet, I also value the efforts of those individuals who have obey the laws and have worked hard to build something for themselves. Therefore, it would be a tough decision for me if it came to that situation. And as I remember, i told the CEO participant exectly what I thought--not because I bias but for it creates a greater conflict of morality and personal values.
Post a Comment