Solitary Confinement! NOW What?

Hello fellow Fellows!

Our most recent class got this discussion off to a great start!

I think we all realize just how complex the prison system is at its core. Chad summarized best the issue at hand when he said that the prison system at its core is an intersection and overlap of issues of race, history, fear, money interests, jobs, and ideology. We also agreed that there seems to be a collision of interests, personal, financial, and otherwise, that work together to perpetuate such a terrible form of punishment. One other thing that we seemed to agree on was that some measure of solitary confinement could be beneficial for some offenders, but only when done for short, reasonable periods of time. The statistics that Professor Stein talked about were staggering: “sixty percent of individuals incarcerated have mental problems.” What are the implications of such statistics? Does it mean that offenders who are released are more likely to be unstable mentally? Would this make it more difficult for offenders to receive the specific help and care that they need when they leave prison, with a history of solitary confinement?

Joseph also did a good job at the start of class telling us about what Felton could have done differently regarding his run-in with the bartender. We cannot forget that potential offenders, as well as offenders should take some measure of responsibility for their actions. The perspective of the victim is just as important as that of the offender. I think the example that Christina gave was so on-point! She talked about her perspective on two different offenders: in one case, she was the victim and wanted the offender to be punished appropriately, and in the other case, her friend was being punished and she thought it terribly unfair. This is a very good example of what one may experience or see when one changes lenses on a situation. There are so many perspectives involved when we look at one case that it is clear to see why a conflict in interests occurs in the overall system. Everybody (prison wardens, offenders, victims, politicians, legislators, family of victims, and the society in general) is not on the same page! Why?

What is the purpose and worth of solitary confinement if it is being used as a tool that ultimately produces jaded, damaged, and resistant people? When I hear a formerly incarcerated individual who experienced solitary confinement say that he would not wish solitary confinement even on the person who was responsible for his being in solitary confinement in the first place, I take it as a powerful testimony of the terror of being confined in such a manner.

Do you think that solitary confinement is the “necessary evil” that must be implemented in an attempt to “discipline” society’s worst offenders? Do you think that a system like that of the British (discussed in the article) can be successful in America? Why? Also, for those who may think that it’s too late for America to adopt the British system, do you think that there is any possible way for America to build toward a system with similar results to that of the British system?

What is justice?

I first want to thank everyone for really getting into the character roles today in class. You all did much better than I could have envisioned.

I get frustrated sometimes after hearing how messed up the world around me can be, how the injustices and unfairness can be allowed to grow each day without much opposition or change. Then I think maybe by changing what I do, or how I perceive different things occurring around me that I can improve something. I think the biggest problem I face is that I want instant results, that I somehow became a victim of the instantaneous culture that is so prevalent today. That somewhere along the way I lost the concept of working hard to achieve goals and that I began to think the ends was not worth the work. That I somehow began to think that the only worthwhile change is the one that comes instantly. Maybe I won't be able to alter the injustices today, and probably I won't be able to alter all the injustices I see. Possibly overtime, with hard work, and experience I can put myself in a position where I am able to make a change, and possibly make a path that will lead to a better, fairer world.

I asked at the end of class today the question that is the title of this blog. Many of the responses had the same answer, "not sure." I began thinking to myself when reviewing the answers, "If so many people are not sure what justice is, and I'm not what justice exactly is, then how can justice be properly rendered?" Are people being arrogant when they say justice can be properly administered? Does the definition of justice serve to full fill people's need to define everything?

Then I thought of the symbol commonly used for justice. "Lady Justice," there is so much imagery that lies within the sculpture that it doesn't define justice, instead it adds to the ambiguity of the idea of justice. Why is it a woman who is the depiction of justice? Are women more just than men? Why is she blindfolded? Is it to prevent her from being bias, or is it to prevent her from seeing the injustices of the world? Why does she carry a balance? Why does she carry a sword? Does that mean justice can only be served through punishment? To me, her imagery only adds questions to the already daunting question.

Finally I would like to ask one last question. How do you see yourselves altering injustices through your future careers or ventures?

Am I A Communist?

I am relieved that the nervousness of teaching my own lesson is over with. Today’s class sparked some amazing conversation, however I never was able to fully dive into the theories of Foucault and how the supermax prison industry illustrates those theories explicitly. I want everyone to understand his discourse on social control, but I will not discuss it here (you will have to complete the reading for that).
I am constantly trying to figure out how to change policy; how to make real change. Lenny, you said that rallies are great, but what do they really accomplish? You need to go through the process of talking with officials and changing legislation, and waiting years for visible change; which nobody wants to do. Alex, you said that they best way to accomplish change is to become a politician, make changes from the inside out. Honestly, I am far past this. I feel that by negotiating with legislators or becoming a politician would be playing their game, and I am not about playing games. Foucault says that without knowledge you do not have power. But I know that in this society, you also do not have power without money. My ideal existence would be one without money, but I know that this will not be a reality anytime in my near future. Until then, I propose that we attack those with the power where it hurts the most; their pockets. I feel that the whole system needs to be dismantled completely and rebuilt from scratch. We already learned from several recessions that when there is economic crisis, things begin to crumble. The amount of social control that is being imposed on us is getting stronger by the second; even as I post this blog entry. So my question is, Do you think this is possible? Do you think that I am being too radical? Can anyone provide a solution that does not bow down to the American Corporatocracy? Does that make me a socialist, or a communist to say that the availability of shelter, food, water, education, healthcare, and contentment should be available for all, including internationally? What is so wrong with communism anyway? The theory is great, it is the dictator that gives this ideal model for society a bad name.

CJA's Purpose

Although I enjoyed the trip, I was hoping to give the classmates a more thorough tour throughout the facilities. We were fortunate enough to see the "above ground" portion of the legal system, the court system and computer room, but to truly get the all-around treatment one must go down to the holding cells. Despite the legitimate and understandable comment made that the prisoners did not want to be seen as if they were animals in a zoo, I find that it is difficult to truly empathize with, and want to help, those locked away by the law without witnessing the cells. To see the holding cells is to feel a gutteral urge to free the people held within them, the sight exhibits a repulsion and desire to undo what is in front of you.

The second thing I wished to clarify is why CJA recommends, or does not recommend, people for release and the consequences of such a decision. CJA seeks to keep people out of jail during their trial so long as it is unnecessary to have them incarcerated. If it is reasonable that the person will return to court for their trials, the basis of which is how unlikely they are to flee the state abandoning their families, jobs, schools, and homes, then upon verifying the existence of such community ties CJA can recommend the person to be released. This in no way facilitates the prisoners release, that is solely in the hands of the judge who may release someone CJA did not recommend or detain someone who was recommended. Keeping someone unnecessarily detained costs thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours, if they are not a menace to society, and it is unnecessary to do so, then everyone wins.

Another thing to keep in mind: this system is obviously not fool-proof, as illustrated by the Son of Sam incident and many others that may come to mind, such as any time a person is released on parole only to commit more crimes. The American Justice system presumes people to be innocent until proven guilty in order to protect the innocent at the expense of allowing some of the guilty to Unfortunately slip through the cracks. It is this premise which forbids torture, and on which CJA bases its actions. In an ideal world the innocent would never be harmed, and only the guilty would be punished, and I believe the system we have in place tries hard to facilitate such an ideal.

What do you think?

I'd like to open up the blog this week to questions or responses you have about today's visit by Jeff Gural. To get the ball rolling, I'll note the things that struck me.

He suggested that the desire to help people might be genetic. There is some science out there for this: in 2008, German researchers claimed to identify an "altruism gene" that makes some people more inclined than others to donate money. What do you think about this? And if it were true, would the genetic impulse necessarily be determining? Might a powerful cultural influence (for example, being raised in a family/church/school that emphasized helping others) be more significant than a gene?

He also suggested that a powerful motivator for people was "advancement." In his experience, this illustrates why capitalism works (even as he admits that it is currently "off its rails"), why some people put up with a bad boss in order to, one day, be the boss. Do you think this explains why some people navigate the unfair terrain of life better than others?

He is clearly a pragmatist in the Herb Sturz school. But in listening to his many stories, did you still hear idealism?

What would you ask him in a third hour of the Vera seminar?

What do you need?

A friend who teaches pre-school told me years ago, when my own children were small, that her school was attempting to reimagine punishment. Instead of paying all the attention, albeit negative, to the kid who did something wrong, they ignored the perpetrator and instead turned to the victim and asked him/her: "What do you need?" I have tried this with my own kids and have always been intrigued by how this functions. It isn't always successful. But it is always enlightening. Sometimes, one really seems to "need" vengeance -- anger is powerful -- but often the answer is "a hug" or "you to do something with me" (being a victim is, among other things, a profoundly isolating experience). Or the answer is "I don't know" and then a conversation begins about causes (what happened before), consequences, behavioral patterns, etc. Such conversations are much more effective paths towards closure and the kinds of self-understanding that lead to better choices down the road.

Pre-school is not the real world, in which there are, as we said in class, a range of transgressions from being in the wrong place at the wrong time to rape and murder. But I was struck by how reading Oliver's story of his own post-incarceration victimization by the PRI opens up the conversation to thinking about whether we are getting what we need from the way we punish. How does the answer to that question change as we think about the different stakeholders involved?

Since so much of our spring semester is organized around "point of view" and how it acknowledges (or not) the range of perspectives in any given issue, I also wanted to open up the conversation to the choices that are made (consciously or unconsciously) when recounting one's own particular perspective. This was the really interesting thing about Oliver's story to me: he never mentioned what his crime was. So as I was reading I was thinking a range of things: maybe it was so bad he didn't say because it would prejudice the reader against him; maybe he was relatively innocent (an addict caught up in the drug laws, for example) but he wanted to insist that he did not = his crime (his point being he did his time and it is OVER); or maybe it is still traumatic for him, and academic argument (even in the first person) enables a safe kind of way both to talk and not to talk about it. So even in a straightforward four-page essay, there are lots of complicated perspectives. How on earth can justice then be systematized (i.e. a justice system) to give us "what we need"?

Teacher For A Day

Hey guys! I feel like I should start by stating the obvious, I’m not very good at this whole blogging thing. But I hope that by now you all know me well enough that I can be candid. I’d like to leave behind the analytical, academic tone of this semester’s archive and ask you all a question that is purely selfish: How do you like to learn?

As we are all tweaking and finalizing our lesson plans, it was proposed to me by Prof. Reitz that it might be a good idea to ask you guys to think about a learning experience that you particularly enjoyed. Why did you enjoy it? Why do you remember it? Was the professor more engaging than most others? Was there a guest speaker? Was the class discussion especially riveting? Was there a debate or even an argument that broke out? Did an activity teach you something new about yourself, about someone else? Were there cupcakes?

One of my ‘top 10 classes’ took place about a month ago. My International Human Rights professor decided to take a step back and let one of his students teach a class. His aim was to show the class that students could, and should, get involved in the field as soon as possible. He wanted us to understand that you don’t necessarily need a degree to make a difference. The presenter for the evening was an undergraduate student who had spent her summer researching human rights violations in the Dominican Republic, before moving on to work with a non-profit community organization (promoting the right to education) in India. The presentation itself was a combination of a personal narrative about her experience, and an informational session on types of NPOs and NGOs. She had pictures and slides and all that jazz. But what I felt was most important about the presentation, was that she was demonstrating how what we were discussing in class was relevant and applicable to the real world. She took the ideas and theories she had studied at John Jay and brought them to communities that needed those fresh perspectives. It was amazing how much the organization in India appreciated her knowledge and how she was able to share the information with the staff and the community that they serve.

It is with this aim, of presenting ideas that students can begin to apply immediately to their lives and their careers, that I chose ‘Philanthrocapitalism’ and venture philanthropy for my lesson. On a personal level, I am also interested in the discussion that might come out of my lesson. As a supporter of these ideas, it will certainly help me to begin to understand why some people agree that they’re not so great. What is it that you hope to get from your ‘teacher for a day’ experience?

I hope this blog entry will help us to create lesson plans that will be interesting and engaging for each other.

So please, tell me, how do you like to learn?

-Lenny