Karen Pittman once said, “The ongoing growth process in which all youth are engaged in attempting to: 1) meet their basic personal and social needs to be safe, feel cared for, be valued, be useful and be spiritually grounded, and 2) build skills and competencies in their daily lives.” I truly believe that youth development is a shared responsibility between family, school, community-based organizations, religious organizations, civic groups and youth themselves. However, in many cases we see otherwise. Youth are the center of their growth, and each youth person meets their needs through their own context. Youth development is ACTIVE not PASSIVE, which places value on making intentional connections with the youth.
In Gray’s article, “The Lord of Rikers,” inmates call “One Main,” the most dangerous facility on Rikers, the “House of Pain.” Inmates are described to be “minorities from broken homes in public housing, awaiting robbery and murder charges. They have all the ordinary problems of youth: impaired judgment, poor impulse control, and invincibility complexes, distorted and amplified by hard life on the streets.” Former prison commissioner Marty Horn calls Rikers an “asylum,” and says, “There’s nothing you can do, or anyone else, to make them stop fighting.” He then continues and says, “They are kids, and they want to fight each other. That’s what they want to do. And some are stronger than others. Jail is like the ocean…You got your bluefish, your barracudas, and your great whites.” Youth offender’s needs and issues are identified, however, we see how correctional officers who work in the facilities condone violent behavior against other inmates. An asylum is a shelter that protects from danger; it shouldn’t sharpen violent behaviors of youth offenders to become better offenders. There are many cases where correctional officers are accessories to the killings of inmates. Fellow inmates beat Christopher Robinson--a teenager that violated parole by showing up at his new job as an overnight stock boy--to death in his cell. In this killing, correctional officer, McKie and a partner were charged with “running a criminal enterprise inside their housing area and outsourcing their duties to teenagers who killed Robinson.” McKie was arrested, convicted, and served a short sentence for such a tremendous offense.
Some of us will ask, “Was there any justice for this teenager and his family?” or “Why are correctional officers behaving in this manner?” Now in the “Gray Zone,” Primo Levi would argue that it is difficult to judge everyone involved in a criminal act. The “gray zone,” which refers to the motives of guilt, torture, terror, and the desire to obtain power amongst two parties that converge and diverge, in this case, correctional officers and inmates. Although the fault lies within the system, as outsiders, we cannot judge or justify the motives of others because we have not experienced it ourselves.
Given these gray zones, are programs and organizations really helping to empower youth to change or is it all a show for society to watch and be comforted with for the time being?
25 comments:
After Popy's class that day, I was thinking of other reasons why Rikers is so violent. Among other obvious things, I think it's important fact that it's impossible to create any kind of relationship or safety while at Rikers. So what do people do when they have no friends or relationships? They get aggressive. It's not only the "prisoners" that feel this, it's the officers too. The turn over for all prisoners is a couple months (sometimes more) and the officers can not get grips on anyone. It seems more of the chaos theory than anything else. I'd argue that the concept of Jail is almost useless at this point. The majority of prisons are not half as violent as the Rikers JAIL is so it's interesting to think and wander where's the animosity really is coming from?
To attempt to answer Popy's question, how can programs or organizations help without first creating relationships with the youth? And how can youth create relationships with people they barely trust and already have huge caseloads of youth to 'save'? And of course I can't blog without playing the devil's advocate: Not all youth can be categorized as innocent, a lot of us in our vera fellowship come from damn tough childhoods. Yes, many youth are innocent and being taken advantage of by the System but there is that percent that isn't. Sorry to sound harsh but you can only hold someone's hand for so long. People, including youth have to change for themselves, programs and organizations can only help so much without taking all the blame or everyone is just in a constant gray zone cycle that will never end.
One of the reasons I was so adamant in class about trying to clarify our concepts--like the "system" and the "gray zone"--where Riker's was concerned was that I think it's important in terms of understanding how to think about the article and to comprehend the conditions under which a child was murdered, numerous others were beaten and taken advantage of, and otherwise "normal" grown men ended up facilitating crime. On one hand, we might see "the system" as the gang hierarchy, with the child functionaries, the "dayroom niggas" and "PODs" who were caught up in the system through threat, fear, and force, existing in the "gray zone." In this view, the COs who collaborated with the gang members at the top of the hierarchy would be part of the system, not the gray zone. The DNs and PODs without whom the system could not exist would be those whose culpability is ambiguous due to their coerced, motivated-by-survival participation. This view would clearly place the COs who facilitated the criminal, ultimately murderous acts of the juveniles in the realm of clear immorality deserving of unambiguous condemnation because their participation was not motivated by survival, not clearly coerced; they were at the top of the pecking order with the high-level gang members.
On the other hand, we might see "the system" as the entire housing unit and the jail administration that created it. (We could go even further out and call it the entire police and CJ system, including parole, but for the sake of clarity, let's not.) This would lead to the conclusion that all of the juveniles who lived in the housing unit and the guards who worked in it were in the gray zone. They kept the system going by participating in violence, but they did not create the conditions under which violence was the norm and violence was needed for survival. This angle places the COs who facilitated violence and murder in a far less morally clear light, especially since some of them all but begged to be transferred out of the unit. Here, I'm haunted by Levi's comment that Mushfeld, "had he live in a different environment and epoch, probably would've behaved like any common man."
For me, and I think for Levi in writing his piece, trying to think through these complexities is about trying to understand the conditions under which humans are brutal to humans, especially in a systematic way. I think Dani hit the nail on the head with her characterization of Rikers itself as the problem, which indicates that I hold to the second view I outlined above. But I'm not so certain. As I said in class, there is agency within "structure," even if the choice is to hurt or be hurt, kill or die. However, I'm certain that I'm not satisfied with the "worst of the worst" view, the ocean full of sharks, big fish, and little fish. I'm troubled especially here by the fact that we're talking about kids, and everything I believe tells me that the same kids in a totally different environment from the city streets and Rikers would be in other places, maybe high school preparing for college. The fact that some kids make it out, by maybe going to college or becoming COs, as Dani notes, does not mean that those who don't are inherently bad. The case of the CO McKie is instructive here. His wife said the gang was one thing he never wanted to be involved in. This points us again to the massive impact a violent system can have on an individual. And I realize I'm going back and forth...
One of the things I would say in response to Popy's questions about the effectiveness of programs is that programs are about treating the individual. The problem is in them and they must change. One of the reasons I believe plain education, especially liberal arts education, is valuable is because it expands our view of the world. It takes us out of ourselves and helps us to understand that we exist within social structure and history, even as both are in us. I hope that the programs dedicated to youth like those on Rikers find some way to get at this.
I agree that youth development should be active, but most people don’t really think about planning and developing their lives. When the living situation is bad, they’re going to only think about living and the development of one’s life, not just their youth, becomes a passive thought. The programs and organizations that work to empower youth know this, which is why they are around. I think that these programs are helping youth, but the problem with cities is the population being too big. Each of these programs can only help out so many people in a given day; most of us can see this in our internships. Despite the amount of people our programs might help, there are probably 30 more families with children that don’t know a thing about the programs and even if they wanted to apply, they might not get in for whatever reason.
When I was reading the articles, I thought the grey zone included the COs at Rikers Island. I think that the criminal justice system has a lot of problems that creates a lot of bad decisions, but instead of thinking about the entire criminal justice system as a single gray zone, I see it as a system with multiple sections of gray zones. It seems like what Vera has been doing is fixing some of the problems that create the gray zones.
If a society were to have programs oriented at helping youths, programs that fix societal gray zones like Vera, individuals who are trying to change themselves (as Dani talks about), then the last piece to the puzzle of youth development should be the friends and relatives. In my perspective, our own society can be a gray zone, when children are having children. They don’t learn to be parents, the children learn to survive in the present, but not for their future, which brings us back to a passive youth development issue.
As a result of the violence at Rikers, I think that the programs make an effort to try and change the way young inmates are rehabilitated into society. Although this effort is made, the reason why inmates don't change is because the programs give up on trying to motivate most of these inmates. The majority of the time, the reason why the youth becomes a criminal, it's because they have had a unpleasant childhood.But overall the society wants to see that there is "someone" trying to improve, even though thats not always the case.
I’ve never missed one class and of course I miss the one that I’m passionate about the most. Thank you Popy for picking such an important and controversial topic. I know that I missed an awesome class and debate. First off: HALLELUJAH to Dani for not letting me be the only devil’s advocate in town.
What touched me most was ‘The Lord of Rikers’ article. The Robinson story is typical of the juveniles sent to detention centers and Rikers, however, the aspect of what life is like to him isn’t ever really elaborated on when discussing how bad the CO’s treat the inmates and how all of the illegal internal problems is what makes Riker’s unjust and inhumane. “When I was growing up, when a dude went to jail it was the thing to do, you was somebody. To be a man you had to go to prison”. These words hit the very core of my being. How can we even begin to unravel this ‘grey zone’ when the issues that originate such beliefs and words lie deep within the structure of the impoverished community.
I must agree with Dani, in that not every teenager and adult taken to Rikers is there unjustly. Speaking first hand from a person who grew up knowing what Rikers was because I had family members who worked for years at Rikers. The CO’s at Rikers have one of the toughest jobs in the world I believe. Rikers really IS A JUNGLE. We hear of the internal corruption but we don’t hear of the CO’s getting attacked, murdered, and threatened everyday of which there is no monetary supplement to with stand such an environment (in other words, the moneys not great and they have families to support). “Never bring the job home with you” was what he said to his eldest son who now works as an NYPD officer. Is it okay that they be subjected to such violence, hatred, bigotry, and death simply because what they thought they were signing up for really wasn’t that? There was a man who worked the tour of 6am- 3pm and then worked 4pm – 12am three to four times out of the week for 26 years on the boat at Rikers. He had two sons and a wife. He came home mentally tired, in dire anguish, and never shaked the feeling of hopelessness and despair that came from his second home: Rikers. He said every inmate had the same story, same aggression and the few that didn’t were so few that you could easily spot their fear and naiveness a mile away. What makes this hard working man’s living less important than an inmate’s? Once again I will emphasize that we like our victims a certain way and I guess that’s the defining factor.
I have got to say what an interesting class. I thank Popy for bringing this topic up again because I have heard of the Gray Zone when I took ANT 231, and I definitely did not understand the concept a bit even after the professor explained it. The reading of "The Lord of Rikers" was a perfect match with Levi's reading.
After Popy's class, I had to go to work in Brooklyn-Central Booking. While I was observing the interviews taking place, I noticed something really interesting that caught my eyes. To be honest, I was shocked because I never seen this type of interaction. Some defendants knew each other. They came from the same neighborhood and their reaction impacted me. It was as if they were not just happy but super excited to see each other. I feel like if they were celebrating their arrest. It brings me back to the reading young teenagers think it is "cool thing" to get arrested. Just like Robinson's father said, "When I was growing up, when a dude went to jail, it was the thing to do. You was a somebody. To be a man, you had to go to prison." The majority of arrested people, who were jumping and giving hand shakes once seeing someone they knew locked up, were teenagers. It was as if getting arrested was a normal activity to them. So imagine if getting arrested seems normal to them, what can you expect their reaction be once getting sentenced for a long prison term? Change needs to come from within themselves first. Yes, there are organizations and programs out there that aim to help guide teenagers through the right path, but it all depends on them. Motivation, willingness, and strength is needed from them in order to become successful. Yes, the teenagers come from a disunified family structure, low-income, and destroyed neighborhood, but the environment does not make you the person who you are unless you choose to (which would be considered the weak ones). How many people have managed to become successful coming from these horrible neighborhoods? Not a lot but not any either. A few have fought their way out of that lifestyle with dedication, effort, and determination. It is called objectives and goals.
I'm curious about why no none is engaging with Levi in the discussion. If we say that the two articles were perfect together and we throw around the term "the gray zone," then how is it that we can make such easy, black/white judgments about what happened (happens still) on Rikers and assign culpability in such an unambiguous way?
Great discussions, everyone! This blog is so rich!
Dani, while I agree that because there is no community at Rikers, inmates tend to be violent towards each other, however, I don’t think it’s completely impossible to build relationships with inmates. I agree that it maybe dangerous, but I guarantee that if a correction officer is able to make a connection with a violent teenager, the chance of that teenager changing is very high. As for your question on why teenagers are so violent at Rikers, I believe it’s because Rikers is a place where you’ll have to be on defense mode at all times. Teenagers are competing for the resources, whether it’s a chair or a cavity promoting pop tart. I also agree that not all youth can be categorized as innocent. A majority of them are not, however that does not mean we should stop believing that they cannot change. They are young, and it’s never too late to change and I think we owe them that dignity.
Robert, I love your thoroughness of the gray zone. While I agree with a majority of what you said, I wanted to point out that the “system” and the “gray zone” are not so different. The correctional officers who collaborated with the gang members are part of the gray zone when they collaborate. Think of it as a Venn diagram, one circle represents the COs and the other the gang members. When the two merge, now both parties have similar reasons as to why they are behaving the way they are. This may be for safety, for community, etc. I would also have to disagree with your stance on COs not playing survival. I believe the COs fear for their safety, and for that reason jobs are outsourced to inmates. It’s a different form of survival. Rikers is a violent facility, and when “newcomers” arrive they have to adapt to their environment, and if that means they have to be violent to adapt, then that is what they’ll do. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say, “they kept the system going.” It’s easier for you to make that judgment because it is not you living through it. Lashing out in violence is their defense mechanism because growing up on the streets doesn’t allow you to negotiate better conditions through verbally pleasing communication.
As for the Gray Zone, I chose that article because of Levi’s “gray zone” concept/theory, which explains the more contemporary situation at Rikers. There’s this idea that the privileged population (prisoners at camps or inmates at Rikers) collaborate with those in commanding positions to maintain order, and that is done through violence, coercion, terror for a much bigger need. Let’s look at it as needs and strategies. The strategies of inmates and commanding officers are to fulfill needs. These needs can be safety, food, protection, community, etc. Violence is a strategy to get an extra pop tart. And of course, it is done in a systematic way, which is why I call it totalitarian.
Simon, I agree with you on the grounds that the city is too big, and the fact that programs can only help so many at-risk youth. I also see the criminal justice system as multiple gray zones. There are so many front stage and back stage actors within the system that contribute to the gray zone. And because there is gray, we have not identified many issues that stunt youth development. I also wanted to add that resources are very low. Programs often get huge amounts of budget cuts, which leads to layoffs, and that results in employees having to double up on their job responsibilities. All that happens while trying to “change” the behaviors of youth within a 6-month time frame. I’m sure it’s very overwhelming for those that do this kind of work. As I mentioned in class, sometimes, I feel very overwhelmed because the resources and the time given to change the at-risk youth are unreasonable. I’m only an intern at CASES and I feel the pressure all the time. It’s very draining, I must say.
Cynthia, you brought up a very interesting point. The idea that programs give up motivating youth to change. Because resources are low, and the pressure to change youth is so high, workers often are drained, overwhelmed and underpaid, which may contribute to them giving up. One cannot help others if they cannot help themselves.
Ruby, I was really shaken by Gray’s article, too! I’ll admit that I was pretty depressed reading it. There’s internal corruption in most jails and prisons, and sadly enough, we don’t hear much about COs and how they are threatened, attacked, and sometimes even killed. You also bring up the point that COs and POs not clearly knowing what they are signing up for. I truly believe that both occupations require very little training before the job is taken. And I think that is part of why recidivism is so high.
Gary,
You are really sweet! Although, I still think my defining of the gray zone wasn’t the best, you have given me a compliment and I am going to run with it! The behavior you witnessed at your internship is no surprise to me. In fact, it’s something I’m very familiar with. And indeed, it is surprising that offenders celebrate each other’s company while in jail.
Most of you have mentioned that youth development should be a collaborative effort which goes back to my point that it takes a village to raise a child.
I'd like you all to watch this video. Here's the aftermath of empowerment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3H5qoU_Mo
While I haven't joined in the blog conversation yet, I haven't stopped thinking about last week's class -- and especially the Levi essay. As we've been talking about all year, it is much easier to focus on individuals, as heroes, villians, victims. We can talk a good game about staying focused on how "systems" and "cultures" and "structures" are what matters, but when push comes to shove, we cling to our individual stories. Even look back over the blog this year: what stands out? Lisa, the book-throwing mom, the folks at Central Booking who made eye contact or said something, Trayvon. Even Levi talks about Muhsfeld, whose individual story somehow clarifies a sketchy border at the extreme of the Gray Zone. On some level, Grendel was entirely about this problem. He was a character with a story pulling at all our heart-strings, but also describing a gray zone as he saw himself as a cog in this wheel (his violence becomes identical to those of Hrothgar's men eventually); he found no way of resistance other than to have an "accident" at the end and die, something that Levi said we would like to think could happen in real life, but such aspirations fade into gray.
I think the idea of the gray zone is incredibly useful for the thought experiment of understanding the relationship between and individual and his/her culture (habitus, system, whatever). As we said, we are all more or less in it (I mean that literally, some more, some less) and have to then understand it as a space, a dynamic, a process, and an experience that is both about us and not at all about us.
As a troubled teen, I've spent time at the Spofford Juvenile Center. Later on, I would spend a period of time on Riker's Island. Here's a few things that I've learned from direct, personal experience:
Correction officers are taught that safety is first. THEIR safety. That is what the bubble is for. Their own protection. It is used as a safe haven from sudden physical attacks from inmates. Some COs walk around the unit. Others feel safer remaining inside the bubble where there is immediate access to phones and alarms that can, if necessary, signal for the staff in full riot gear which we used to call Ninja Turtles. Secondly, the CO's job is to ensure the safety of the inmates in the housing unit under their watch. However, COs do adapt to the "society" they're in. In that particular society, COs allow the inmates to police themselves for the most part. There has been jailhouse policies and inmate imposed punishments for violating those policies that dates back for ages. So Robert you are correct in that they (current COs and inmates)did not create the conditions under which violence was the norm or needed for survival. COs do not usually interfere or get involved until after someone is harmed. I recognized that COs were'nt couselors or mentors.Ultimately, my own safety was in my own hands. But a CO may ask the question: Is not interfering in altercations amongst inmates perpetuating the violence? Or, is it simply protecting myself from it?
Many times it is the environment that dictates behavior. So I believe the most hardened juvenile can be humbled. Even the so called "Great Whites" would be goldfish if they were placed in a certain housing unit with adult "Whales".
As we know,the society of jail/prison operates different than that of the free world. The most basic resources and privileges that we take for granted have much greater value in jail. Therefore, inmates are willing to harm one another for them. It's sort of like the Hunger Games. But for me, I seen no "Gray Zone". Everything was in plain black and white. I was aware of all the characters, the role they played, their motives and most importantly, my relationship to them. My only concern was to make it home without any added scars on my face.
I definitely agree that mant times people must adapt to their environment for survival. As I said before, an angel cannot survive in a society of demons. In order to survive, that angel would have to resort to demonic ways.
I am not sure if some of us are making assumptions without actually engaging a young adult to ask them how they feel about certain things we see. but I want to be clear in saying that there is no celebrating for being incarcerated! what we have to understand is that a youngster is aware of the power in numbers while in jail. It's a world strictly ran by "who" and "how many" you know, not what you know that is crucial for survival, obtaining respect and privileges. So when a youth appears to be happy to see his boys with him behind those bars, that youth now knows he's not alone and that there is someone that will have his back if somehing "pops off". Jail is a jungle where predators seek out the week and solitary prey.
Perhaps young Robinson would not have suffered the fate that he did if he had had his own "clique" or group of friends to take the stance of David Walker and Nat Turner and rise up in rebellion against "The Program".
I feel that there are a great number of programs that are actually doing work to reach this younger generation. I do however believe in the saying that "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure". Like Popy, I believe the programs should start in the home with parents and family providing the services. And, although it is draining and overwhelming, we cannot give up advocating for our youth. It should not be an option for us! I often wonder what things would be like if people of a generation or two before me gave up. I probably wouldn't be sitting in class with you guys, at least not with an angry violent mob waiting ouside the school for me.
Popy, I really enjoyed the readings. I always learn so much in these classes! I am always up for discussions on structural violence, systems of power, and its effects. I do not think we can bring significant change just by empowering youth because that is not the basis of the problem. We cannot solve the problem by simply finding solutions because it becomes a never-ending cycle of violence. The solution MUST be in prevention. Prevention starts by changing the way people of power see those who are oppressed. Why are we victimizing the youth and saying the youth is the one that needs to change as opposed to the one who is hurting them?
The discussions on homelessness, teenage behavior, and children having children, all make me think of my experience this weekend. This past weekend, I judged at a middle school debate tournament. At the tournament I could tell there was a significant disadvantage for public school kids. These twelve-year-old kids were at the bottom of the pool and one can only assume that being poor was a huge factor in their placement in this debate “hierarchy”. The twelve-year-old kids from private school strolled into the room, armed with Macbooks, Iphones, and paid coaches, as they discussed complicated topics such as anthropocentrism and U.S. hegemony. I was blown away at the amount of progress and advantage the private school kids had. It was extremely unfair. I knew it, but to see it, experience it, and not be able to do anything about it was the worst part. I spent most of my time coaching the disadvantaged kids and showering them with compliments in hopes to keep their spirits up, but in the end I could only help so many kids. How productive can our work be when all we do is catch the kids when people throw them off a cliff? Can we sit here and say that they should work harder to change her/his attitude towards the world? Should the discussions of empowerment really occur before we evaluate the circumstances that brought them there in the first place? I am not saying there shouldn’t be individual responsibility here, but to shift the focus from systems of power to this seems a bit irrational. I recognize that I am only here at the mercy of kind hearted individuals dedicated to help me when I felt helpless. I don’t know if the same opportunity will arise for these kids, and they are not to blame.
This has been a particularly compelling blog. Like Prof. Reitz, I have laid back to witness your ideas unwinding around the hunk of ambiguity that comprises the Gray Zone. Almost all of you (and Levi too, I think) approach this insoluble mass, this Grendel, this mirror, with combat in mind. Robert, with great analytic precision, follows Levi into a surgical operation that separate the layers of gray so that complicity can be cleaved from culpability in order to determine relative guilt. Gary finds some paradox and maybe even comfort in the visible manifestations of inmates seeming to feel at home in their punitive surroundings. Timothy denies the grayness altogether; he has lived it and won’t be conned onto some greasy academic slope of relative responsibility. Ambiguity is a monster; we will do almost anything to avoid it. Yet the power of totalitarianism, indeed the power of any state, even one that is more democratic, rests on the internalization of its values and habits, so that the people “police” themselves, as in Foucault’s panopticon, or become “the vectors and instruments of the system’s guilt” as in Levi’s Lager. They embody the state and the self simultaneously.
Robert Jay Lifton, who has studied the effects of “totalism” (life under totalitarian regimes) describes the experience of living under such totalizing systems as akin to inhabiting an alternate universe with its own definitions of right and wrong, guilt and innocence, even life and death. In describing the actions of Nazi doctors, sworn to heal and save lives, as they acclimated to “Planet Auschwitz”, Lifton identified a kind of psychic numbing that narrowed focus (think of an animal playing dead to fool a predator), slowly splitting and emptying the mind’s contents, filling it with the rules of the system, until the totalitarian regime has been reproduced in miniature inside the individual. I cannot help but think of Stanley’s experience in apartheid South Africa, as he is momentarily reminded of his humanity, in the scent of burning hair. Even through the evidence of his rebellion, the State has only narrowly missed owning Stanley’s soul. He has killed Maki, actually, on the state’s behalf.
So, what are the possible implications of this for our own criminal justice system, especially as it concerns juveniles, who internalize this even more quickly than adults? Mary V. Seeman, a nurse writing about psychiatric hospitals, and James Gilligan, a psychiatrist who champions therapeutic “anti-prisons”, have both written about the need for establishing democratic communities where patients and doctors, inmates and guards, etc. revamp traditional hierarchies so that distinctions are blurred and treatment or rehabilitative plans are made in partnerships. Programs like this have already been successful, with reductions in violence accompanying greater freedom and restored agency. The greater the threats are to the self, the more likely individuals will split, dissociate, and enact what has been done to them. Fewer threats promote stability and the likelihood one will take a chance on compassion, which Levi says is the one human trait that defies logic.
It may be that such revamping means that we have to renegotiate what we consider "success" in evidence-based assessments. Success is usually defined as acquiescence to the State. If people are empowered, that might be the last thing the State wants, even one as supposedly democratic as our own.
Timothy, I’m always very pleased with your posts. Simple, prose-y, and on point! You need to think about writing a novel. You’d do a phenomenal job! I want to first say thank you for sharing such a personal anecdote. It really strengthens the blog. It also clarifies the role of the COs from a firsthand experience. You mention some really critical issues, in terms of whether COs should get involved during altercations. I would say yes because it is their duty to ensure safety. So my question is, what kind of safety are they ensuring if their responding to the issue after the damage is done? To me that approach is counterproductive. I think a better goal would be to stop it in its tracks before it escalates to death or an extremely serious injury. I know it’s easier said than done, however, this kind of work needs to have a hands-on approach. What kind of community or connections are COs building with inmates if they are protected in their bubble? To me that implies that COs are afraid of the inmates or maybe too elite to interact with them. It goes back to the hierarchy—those on top of the pyramid cannot interact with those on the bottom. I, like you, believe that the most hardened offenders can be humbled. I’ve seen it work through my experience at CASES. And yes, incarceration is not celebrated, and I agree with you and I think what Gary was trying to explain that when inmates are in jail and happen to share a cell with someone from their community they tend to rejoice because now they have some moral support. I also want to end my response to you by saying that I WILL NEVER GIVE UP ON EMPOWERING OUR YOUTH! I WRITE IT IN CAPS BECAUSE I MEAN IT WHEN I SAY IT. MY JOURNEY HAS JUST BEGUN.
Christine, I’m so glad you enjoyed the readings! I’m genuinely touched by your story. As you may or may not know, I am a product of public schools, and many times as a kid, I felt outsmarted by students who went to private schools. I’ve always been passionate about my education, which is why I can never do half-hearted work. I feel the need to always give it my all, and this is because of my childhood. I didn’t have to fancy gadgets to contribute to my education. I always had to go that extra mile to get access to resources that private school kids easily had access to because of the rich backgrounds. I totally understand your concern and it is really overwhelming because as advocates of social justice, it is normal for us to feel this way. Also, I agree with your stance on prevention, and I also believe protection and reintegration of offenders is also significant to change.
Reading Popy’s post in response to Timothy causes a tear roll down my eye. Although there are many people who claim to go into a social service job to fight the good fight it is difficult because there are times when I see otherwise. There are times when people are trying to fight for a greater good but they easily get lost. They also hold onto certain views which I feel may be ignorant and perspectives which were shaped by the “shapers” which want them to give up. This is why I love the seminar we are all trying to understand certain things which we were probably blind to because of past “shapers” told us.
It amazes me how powerful a topic like the grey zone is. Understanding the grey zone has helped me understand the roles many different systems have played in my life and how I fit in the equation. Although Primo Levi related it to his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp can so often be found, it is rarely discussed, in human behavior. Although Levi’s story is powerful in its own right in a way we all have stories that can relate to the grey zone. Because when it comes to living and dealing with certain systems no matter which side someone is on someone always trying to survive. The grey zone is more apparent in systems which are meant to oppress/control. Whether if the system has good intentions or not, the methods they are using to enact their views may cause the same people they are working with/for/against to adapt for survival. This is so because we are all human beings simply trying to survive in our environment. Although within this grey zone there is this obvious good and obvious evil (depending on which side you’re looking at it from) there must be a way for both to coexist epically when realizing that the eradication of one or the other is almost impossible.
This is something which has played a large role in my life. Whether if it is in school or in my neighborhood. This got more complicated to me when I was trying to figure out if a person cannot formally recognize who is good or evil. A good example is something that I have observed in several urban communities where illegal activity is occurring. When I arrived to my house I saw several guys flashing seventy eighty thousand dollar cars. These guys were the neighborhood drug dealers, although not all of them were drug dealers a good amount of them were. Some of them have been around for years. Although I always recognized their role within the community and knew what they did in my neighborhood I never fully understood as to why I could bring myself to hating them. In several neighborhoods where the shipping and trafficking of illegal drugs is rampant out of the recognition that the drug trade is forever revolving door police officers, 9-5 citizens, and drug dealers will create a grey zone/pact to coexist. For example there may be a 9-5 citizen who is irritated and hates the idea that drugs are being sold in his neighborhood so this individual may call for help from the police. The police instead of arresting the individuals, knowing that they are drug dealers and realizing the situation simply tell them to stop loitering. Or there may even be a 9-5 citizen who hates drug dealers in the neighborhood but also realizes he rather drug dealers then police officers harassing him in the neighborhood. The 9-5 citizen and the police officers may never financial support the illegal drug industry. But at the same time this may be done to avoid getting into a fight, out of fear of probably being labeled a snitch/losing their life or out of recognition that it could probably waste of time. Drug dealers at times may even have to work with rules or laws to follow if they want to sell drugs within the neighborhood. So as citizens living in a post 9/11 world where we are told that if we see something we should say something many people don’t. Although we all may agree that there shouldn’t be drug dealers in any neighborhood to survive urban city residents may simply adapt to the situation. We as human beings are always put in tough situations even though we can easily recognize the good/the evil there’s times where people do certain things to avoid certain harms and realities.
When it comes to what occurred in Rikers I don’t think that anybody epically child should be imprisoned for a crime they committed. Surely there are crimes which are heinous and evil beyond or comprehension but if we can agree that children have yet to fully develop why would we punish them the same as someone who is of age or put them in corrections system that is the same. Working at Common Justice which is an alternative to prison we assist our participants put their life together while still maintaining their freedom. Although Common Justice doesn’t have a hundred percent success rate I’m sure it has a higher success rate then Rikers island or any upstate “correction facility”. Although this sounds as if I’m looking for donors the constant disorganization many of these kids/young adults face within their family, their neighborhoods, the courts, and the prison system a little order and organization definitely would help. That is what all of our programs tend to offer organization, empowerment, and growth. In my view prison can and will never successfully accomplish all three objectives. We need to stop locking people up and throwing away the key hoping that they will stumble upon a book and change their life. Not to say that all prisoners shouldn’t be held but many shouldn’t.
Timothy, Christine, and Roberto bring the power of personal experience to the discussion. I'm especially struck by the issue of education--particularly public education. All things public are consistently under attack these days--health care, public employee pay, public employee unions, public expenditures for infrastructure, teacher pay, public education--EXCEPT corrections. Check out this part of something I just put together for some research I'm working on:
"The fiscal costs of the US’s immense criminal justice system are staggering, draining resources available for education and other public goods. US taxpayers spent 74 billion dollars on corrections in 2007, representing more than a tripling, in raw dollar amount, of expenditures since 1982 (BJS 2012).
A recent study of forty US states found that the current average cost of keeping a person in prison for a single year, including hidden costs that fall outside corrections budgets, is approximately $30,000, with the state of Kentucky spending the least per inmate per annum at $14,603 and New York State spending the most at $60,076 (Henrichson and Delaney 2012). By way of comparison, for roughly the cost of incarcerating one person for a single year in New York, the state could pay the entire in-state tuition of THREE STUDENTS attending a senior college of the City University of New York FOR FOUR YEARS (CUNY 2012).
By 2007, states were spending 1 out of every 15 general-fund dollars on corrections, and corrections spending increased 127 percent between 1987 and 2007; in contrast, spending on higher education increased by only 21 percent during the same period (Pew 2008)."
Social policy IS social structure. Rikers, Christine's debate, Roberto's streets, Timothy's Hunger Games are examples of how it gets embodied by people, mostly only certain people, of course. This is a vile misplacement of priorities in my opinion.
Professor Reitz, I agree with you on your ideas of the gray zone. I also think it contributes to understanding the relationship between the person and what you call, culture.
Professor Stein, you have raised a really interesting question. I think the criminal justice system, similar to the Nazis, promises to help the victims, however, because they are virtually immune from punishment, the system functions the way it wants anyway. In doing this, it escalates the issue rather than curbing it.
Roberto, wipe that teardrop because everything’s going to be all right. The gray zone is a very powerful concept and for that reason I wanted to discuss it with the seminar class. I’m really glad you were able to understand it and apply it to your personal life for closure. Sometimes closure within ourselves is what we really need to justify why we are the way we are or why we do the things we do. I also want to genuinely thank you for being so open on the blog about issues in your personal life. As I mentioned to Timothy, it really strengthens the blog and allows for a deeper understanding of some of society’s complex gray zones. I completely agree on the grounds that people shouldn’t be locked up. If it were a judge, I would sentence everyone to education. Although, I must admit, some people need to be locked up and this pertains to those who steal the life of others. Since I started interning at CASES, I firmly believe that cognitive and attitudinal skills training can change the behaviors of offenders.
Robert, thanks for the insight! I always had an idea that inmates in prisons are costly, however, I didn’t think the dollars were that high. Very interesting.
As for everyone else, thank you so much for such a positive teaching experience last week. I really enjoyed teaching the class and I’m glad you all enjoyed the readings. I am empowered in many ways from all of your discussions, and I truly feel privileged to belong to this cohort. Once again, thank you!
Post a Comment