It has been a pleasure and a wonderful experience sharing a class with you all. Professors Stein and Reitz, Robert, Ruby, Roberto, Dani, Popy, Gary, Christine, Cynthia, and Simon: Thank you for making this experience a memorable one.
As we all seen from our role playing at our hypothetical parole board hearing, an individual seeking reentry will undoubtedly face numerous obstacles on his/her journey. Whether it is the other parent, seeking employment or the psychological battle that may take place in the mind of the ex-offender. In the end, the board ruled that the conditions of the prisoner's release were to participate in parenting, anger management and job skills classes. Let's take a moment and consider our various individual perspectives we were given. Let's talk about how these classes would OR would not help the ex-offender deal with these perspectives (or points of views).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Boy what a year! What a wonderful way to finish what is undoubtedly the most rewarding academic experience I've had the pleasure to participate in .
First off: cudos to Prof. Reitz for a compelling performance ( leads me to wonder if you abandoned your wonderful red carpet life for teaching-lucky us).
Second:Timothy ...words could never express what a wonderful mentor you have become to many of us. I know what it's like to visit and in many ways take home with you the anguish and despair when a loved one is incarcerated but I know that I cannot really understand what it must feel like to experience it first hand and choose every day to break the stigmas that others place on you due to your past. If we all were to have a parole hearing that consisted of the bad choices that we made being put on the table with a group of those that were affected by those choices and our peers to determine our deserving of an "early release", what would we do under those circumstances? Could we all be as determined to prove our rehabilitation as T.Fowl given the tools that he was given? Would you be able to persevere? I honestly don't know if I'd be able to fight that fight .
What a year indeed! We can't thank you enough for the glorious final seminar, with its warmth and energy. This year with the fellows has been incredibly satisfying and while I'm sure we are all looking forward to a break from school, I'm very sorry the year with you folks is coming to an end. Thanks again for such a memorable conclusion to a wonderful year.
Tim's class has been a source of continued reflection exactly for the reason that Ruby suggests in her comments: what would it feel like to have a hearing on you? Could anyone's decisions withstand such a collection of experts, friends, family -- all of whom (whether they are supportive or not) have their own perspectives? And who is the person at the hearing? Certainly not the same person who committed the act, as prison changes who you are. It is humbling to think about. I liked what Roberto said about Common Justice trying to address the dilemmas posed by the nexus of harm, healing, retribution and hope.
Tim's seminar has also made me think about the Tyler Clemente/Darun Ravi case. The sentencing is supposed to come down today. There is an interesting piece in the Times today that talks about gay rights activists wanting Ravi not to go to jail. While there are many complicated points, the one that seemed so appropos to our seminar was that many different cultural messages shaped these young men who fatefully collided as Rutgers roommates. In throwing the book at Ravi, are we trying to simplify such challenging multiple perspectives?
Oh Tim, where do I start? You are a star! I agree with Professor Reitz, last class was indeed glorious. I was really amazed by everyone’s performance. We were really into it, which made the hearing really fun and thought provoking.
I think parenting, anger management, and job-skills training would benefit the offender in many ways. For one, parental training will help strengthen the offender’s relationship with his/her family. Anger management will allow the offender to not only deal with their anger in productive ways but also allow them to think consequentially. And lastly, job-skills training will allow the offender to learn how to become economically independent. All the trainings collaboratively will allow the offender to change.
I'm not one to usually give compliments on the blog, but I have to agree with everybody when they say the last class was great. It really makes me think about a perspective that I hate. I know I didn't talk much in class, but I ended up saying what I had planned in my head while we were outside instead.
As the corrections officer who was threatened by T. Fowl, my character believes 100% that Mr. Fowl is a violent person by nature. I felt very restricted to the character's belief and couldn't put myself in his shoes much, but what I said was; if there's already 3 occurrences of violent outbursts with each occurrence becoming more and more violent, the next one would likely be more violent. I thought my character was somehow racist or discriminating/harassing Mr. Fowl in some way, because I couldn't think of any other reason he would single out one prisoner out of the entire prison to put into solitary confinement for being violent. The other possible reason was if Mr. Fowl reacted extremely violent, even more than the standard prisoner (which is the situation that I took).
As for the question of the blog, since my character is completely invested in the idea that Mr. Fowl is violent, I doubt any of the classes will help. It seems to play to the old ideas of criminality, where people are born as criminals due to some biological attribute. Anger will eventually take over and Mr. Fowl will beat his children, his co-workers, and anybody else present at the time of his outbursts. (Again, I completely disagree with what my character would argue)
The seminar was beautiful hopefully I won’t wake up this Thursday and get to class at 10:15. First I would like to commend Professor Reitz for seeing the word perspective and refraining herself from quoting “Grendel” or my personal favorite “In the Grove”. Everyone did a phenomenal job acting out their roles. Brining to life the reality of the hardships many individuals’ ex-offenders face when they are trying to escape their past wrongs.
Although I did not have the opportunity to fully reveal my character, I was a gang leader who ran a successful legal business. If Mr. Fowl failed to receive a job of shelter out of prison I would’ve given him a job a full time job and shelter for a few months. The argument I was bent on making to assist Mr. Fowl in getting released was that a person is not always a product of their environment and although people can be pushed into certain situations in light of their financial situations as humans if given the opportunity we will rise above it. This was seen in my character who although was a gang leader had a mind for numbers and ran a successful legal business because some bank/people invested into his idea.
Even though my character was running a legal business as a gang leader who still has ties to gang activity my character could easily get Mr. Fowl involved into a more organized bigger organization of crime. Things are difficult especially when you are out in a world filled with nothing but struggles. Whether it be dealing with his child’s mother, his daughter, questionable future employment, and possibly going back into the same surrounding he was in before. Along with all the other possibly destructive factors, my character could also have a negative impact on Mr. Fowl’s growth, in the long run this could be the perfect storm for recidivism. With all that said I think that it is fair to point out that Mr. Fowl succeeded in an environment which is extremely difficult to remain positive in, so his chances of succeeding on the outside are pretty good. Not to take anything from Mr. Fowl’s struggles but throwing someone in prison for X amount of years isn’t always justice to the victim of a crime.
What Professor Reitz displayed were the views of someone who is struggling with great trauma. Too often the criminal justice system doesn’t seek an equitable form of justice for the harmed individual/victim. Professor Reitz’s character felt that it was unfair that Mr. Fowl succeeding in putting the pieces of his life together after several years of their encounter. On the other hand she was still struggling with finding several pieces of her life which was lost during the incident. This is what Common Justice seeks to do find a balance where both parties grow and eventually become rehabilitated.
Timothy, thank you for a wonderful class. It was hard to cater to so many different perspectives in the room. The people who seem to matter the most did not seem to understand the bigger picture. I sympathized with the victim the most because it seems that no one ever cares about the victim. Would locking up the inmate longer bring back all everything the victim lost? I do like the restorative justice approach because it is the only scenario that gives the victim a chance to talk about his/her own feelings. Why do we care so much about the correctional officer, as a victim, but we disregard the women who was robbed? Is it because she is a civilian and not a uniform officer? I think the classes will be beneficial in some ways because it would prove all those who doubted him that they were wrong upon completion of the program. The programs do not address the system changes that need to occur to help him progress in life. This “quick fix” of putting inmates into programs only attempts to heal the wounds, but they do not prevent them in the future for other cases. The programs also assume that he was the necessary foundations of reentry in order to fully participate in the program. It will only succeed if he does not need to worry about housing, rent, or food. If all the essential needs are not met then it will only add on the stress.
I cannot think of a more fitting ending to our class than “going live” with a parole hearing. At some juncture this semester, I told one of the fellows something like I wasn’t sure whether students viewed me as a mother figure or a probation officer. As we acted out our roles, it was not at all clear what piece of ourselves we took into the mix. As Simon said about his C.O. persona, I felt very punitive in my role but, instead of being divorced from the character, I felt all the ways that my performance was infused with the very real nature of my personal conflicts and anger, not normally given vent because I am usually so invested in performing “liberal”. When T. Fowl asked, “who made you the one who runs things here?” I realized how the control I assume as my professorial due had slopped right over into my new persona. As a professor, OF COURSE I wanted the ex-offender to take MORE CLASSES. A full curriculum of anger classes, skills training classes, parenting classes… how could he not get better by doing that? What my wish seemed to be was to turn T. Fowl into a version of me. (In real life, of course, I want Timothy Fowler to get a Ph.D., just like me. Another example of how hard it is to truly take another perspective.)
I am not arguing here that presenting people with opportunities to learn is a bad thing (Leyva’s article proves just the opposite) but that the effect may be negligible when classes are mandated rather than chosen. I have often made the argument that, in my life, a combination of White privilege and benign neglect saved me from the helping hand of Spofford Juvenile Center, court assigned social workers, and other rehabilitation specialists who, in retrospect, might have helped me right into a straightjacket called delinquent from which I may well have never escaped. Tim’s class helped me own the paradox of being someone who wants to help in a situation when it may be impossible to separate help from control and its dubious implications. I hope that this is something you think about all the time in your quest for social justice; problematizing our myriad schemes for making things better is, I think, the only way to move forward.
I have no more words to add to what everyone has agreed on because, I too, will probably repeat how glorious and eye opening the class was. I think that the alternatives given to Mr. Fowl would eventually help him into integrating back into society as a citizen. The anger management classes would show an ex- offender to control the simultaneous rage he might feel in a moment of conflict. This is important because a we talked about the trauma that a prisoner suffers, we recognized that the person that's sitting at their hearing isn't the same person as before. The job skills workshop will contribute to the growth of the ex offender because it is essential to know the basics of getting a job. Skills used to get employment can also contribute to establish some kind of financial stability to the person in order to show that he can sustain himself like a responsible being.
Yes, I'd like to echo Prof. Stein's concluding point about problematizing our "solutions" -- one of the underlying goals of the perspective assignment was to realize that today's problems were yesterday's solutions (whether that is the Rockefeller Drug Laws or Eastern State Penitentiary).
Ahhh sorry guys! I've posted now twice and for some reason it's not showing up both times!
After the "Parole Board" meeting, I kept thinking how frustrating it is from all the different perspectives. How can anyone win that and the inmate will always be seen as the enemy. I've been present to two parole board hearings myself and the tension is terrible. We achieved that tension when we started to get to arguing out points. Especially the victim's frustration that one cannot ignore. From my perspective as Tim's Baby Mama, I wouldn't of approved of Tim getting out because of his violence both before and during his time.
Thank you again for a fabulous class Tim!!
Tim's class was the perfect end to a fabulous experience. I call it an experience for lack of a better word: "class" or "course" both seem far too pedestrian and certainly don't capture all that this year has entailed. To add an adjective: it was a learning experience, in the truest sense. I feel so privileged to have gone through this year and to have spent time each week with all of you. Think of the knowledge we have amassed; consider the way our cherished views and opinions have been challenged; look at the social capital we've accrued. This is what education should be about!
So my perspective for the hearing was a guy who wanted funding for college-in-prison cut and who thought that the answer to high crime rates was to build more jails and keep people locked up. Tim was VERY astute (as usual) in choosing our perspectives. He forced me to think in ways opposite to how everyone knows I normally think. The problem for me was that I REALLY had trouble relating to the character at all and thus I resorted to performing a sort of caricature of what I imagine his "type" to be. One of the things it made me think about (and this is apropos of Professor Stein's remark on performing liberal) was how my own staunch adherence to my usual positions and viewpoints is also a kind of caricature. I also thought that in a forum like that, a parole board, there's a certain expectation that people will play roles and speak according to a sort of script. How can that set-up yield anything but a kind of play? It's very theatrical if you think about it. I know there's been some talk about starting to videotape parole boards in NY. This would certainly add to the dynamic I'm talking about, although the fact that they are now recorded by a stenographer is also relevant. Along this line of thinking, I was particularly impressed by Tim's efforts to humanize himself by asking how Prof. Stein's character saw him. This is clearly off-script for these types of things. But we should also keep in mind that most parole board hearings are FAR shorter than our mock one. There isn't time to humanize or to even ask to be seen as a person. The potential parolee, as a role, must sit down, show remorse, and be convincing about how s/he's been rehabbed, all in about 10 minutes, during which time the board members must question and do their thing. Anyway, it was a thought-provoking class with many facets.
Quickly on Darun Ravi's sentence: I read that gay rights activists, before the sentence, were calling for no jail time. I felt a similar way and said all along that it would be unjust for him to get more than a few months at the most. What Ravi did had very serious consequences, but at base, it was a childish prank. I think people have to be held responsible for their actions, but I also feel that childish pranks and adolescent mistakes shouldn't be overly criminalized. In short, I think the sentence of 30 days jail time and probation is sufficient. I know he's also subject to deportation and this is another matter for me. One on hand, it makes a difference that he's clearly an upper class Indian and won't necessarily suffer too much from being deported. (It isn't like he's a pauper being sent to Syria.) On the other, as a matter of principle, I'm not sure I like the idea of using deportation as punishment and of the justice system treating people without US citizenship differently than it treats citizens.
I enjoyed the way Tim decided to close the last day of the Vera seminar. I have never been in a parole hearing, but I can surely say now that I was. The way each John-Jay Vera fellow and professor took their role made everything feel so real and alive. I have to admit that I am one of those people that believe that convicts will never change, but with what you have shared about your past history and seeing where you are now it has definitely changed my view on convicts. I do have hope for some convicts. I cannot believe how close-minded I was, thinking that convicts should not receive any rehabilitation support. From my employment perspective, I would give the convict a chance to work for my corporation, but if he commits a severe problem he will be dismissed. I do think that T. Fowl will change with these programs given to him.
Even if my adherence to my cherished beliefs is a sort of caricature, I like to think that I base those beliefs upon evidence. I was just wondering upon which evidence we might base the view that "'convicts' will never change." Recidivism rates? Ok, let's take a look. In NYS, the recidivism rate in New York State has stayed consistent at about 40% over a pretty long period. If we use recidivism as a proxy for "not changing," then this rate means that 4 out of 10 "convicts" don't change and 6 out of 10 do change. Already, we see that the belief that "convicts" (as some type of homogenized category that is itself problematic--like "blacks," "gays," "Hispanics," etc.) will never change is not backed up by solid evidence, since a clear majority in fact do change. But if we look a bit closer, we have other evidence that most "convicts" in fact do change. Recidivism is defined, in the statistics I'm referring to (NYS Dept. of Corrections numbers), as "return to prison." This includes "convicts" who return for technical parole violations, which may include missing curfew, getting a dirty urine, having police contact (stop and frisk highly relevant here--I went to a talk where a representative from the Center for Constitutional Rights said that "the NYPD is one of the greatest barriers to successful reintegration for young black men returning from prison" because of stop and frisk), or some other relatively minor infraction. If we take out parole violators, the percentage of "convicts" who return to prison FOR A NEW CRIME is about 20%. So if we use "committing a new crime" as a proxy for not changing, then 8 out of 10 change, while only 2 out 10 don't. If we break this down further and look at the crimes people return for, we see that a large majority of returns are for drug convictions (let us all take a moment to genuflect over never getting caught) and property crimes; return numbers for violent crimes are low and those for the most serious crimes are miniscule. So, if we accept recidivism and commission of new crimes as proxies for not changing, then the evidence backs up the point that more convicts change than don't change; if we don't accept these as proxies, then I'm open to suggestions about what we might use in lieu of them.
It is very true that a "real" parole board hearing does not allow the prisoner seeking reentry to speak so freely at such great length. At our seminar hearing, T. Fowl was able to say all the things that Timothy Fowler wanted to say at a parole hearing in the past. I truley wonder with the mass amount of individuals who come in and out of those doors, sit in the same chairs, and share similar stories about their past, do the people making decisions on the release of the prisoner see them as numbers? Bodies? Or do they see these inmates as actual people? On my days off, I used to travel to the Queens Courthouse and just sit in on arraignments. As we all are aware, the faces that came in and out the doors were all similar. After a while, the charges appeared to be all similar. (This may be shocking or somewhat a suprise to some, but why? This is the norm. What would be shocking to me is if one day I witness all white faces entering and exiting those doors. That would be "abnormal".) Similar to the parole board hearings, one can sense a bit of dehumanizing. After a while, the judge did not even look up and view the defendant. His eyes became fixated on the papers in front of him. The defendants were no longer humans; they were docket numbers.
Post a Comment