By Rich Lowry
Prison is one of the most important
institutions in American life. About a quarter of all the world’s
prisoners are behind bars in the United States, a total of roughly 2
million people. It costs about $60 billion a year to imprison them.
This vast prison-industrial complex has succeeded in reducing crime
but is a blunt instrument. Prison stays often constitute a graduate
seminar in crime, and at the very least, the system does a poor job
preparing prisoners to return to the real world. Since 95 percent of
prisoners will eventually be released, this is not a minor problem.
Prison tends to be harsh in small-minded ways (taking away weights
and various TV programs) and lax in the important things. Needless to
say, sexual violence and de facto rule by gangs — all too common —
shouldn’t be tolerated in a civilized country. And when it comes to
inculcating habits that might make prisoners decent citizens, prison
should be more prescriptive, rather than less.
In an essay in the journal National Affairs, Eli Lehrer sets out an agenda for reform geared toward rehabilitation, and the conservative group Right on Crime, a project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, advocates a similar program.
Most fundamentally, prisoners should be required to do what many of
them have never done before, namely an honest day’s work. Fewer than a
third of offenders hold full-time jobs at the time of their arrest,
according to Lehrer. They won’t acquire a work ethic in prison.
University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Stephanos Bibas notes
that only about 8 percent of prisoners work in prison industries, and
about 4 percent on prison farms.
Labor unions and businesses have long supported restrictions on
productive work by prisoners for fear of cheap competition, but their
self-interested concerns shouldn’t obstruct attempts to instill the most
basic American norm in people desperately in need of it. Prisoners
should be made to work, but be paid for it and rewarded if they are
particularly diligent and skilled. As Bibas argues, some of the proceeds
can go to restitution for victims, to paying for their own upkeep, and
to support for their families.
Prison should align itself with other norms. Inmates with drug and
alcohol addictions should be forced to get treatment. There should be
maximum openness to faith-based programs, such as those run by the
splendid Christian organization Prison Fellowship. Prisoners should be
encouraged to keep in contact with their families rather than cut off
from them through what Bibas calls “cumbersome visiting policies and
extortionate telephone rates.”
Once offenders get out, there’s a good chance that they are going
back. Lehrer notes that about 40 percent of ex-prisoners are rearrested
within three years. The goal should be to reduce recidivism as much as
possible. Offenders shouldn’t be discharged directly from solitary
confinement, or discharged without a photo ID. In the job market, they
shouldn’t be denied occupational licenses when the job in question has
nothing to do with their crime. They should, if their crime wasn’t too
serious, eventually have it expunged from the records for most purposes.
Ex-inmates out on parole or on probation should be monitored more
closely. As Lehrer writes, “Transition programs should increasingly
involve random, unannounced home visits, subject ex-offenders to
round-the-clock electronic monitoring, require them to take random drug
tests, and offer them swift and certain punishment for slip-ups.”
Playing against type, hang-’em-high Texas has been a model of prison
reform and innovative reentry programs of the sort championed by Right
on Crime. It has sent fewer people to prison while crime has continued
to decline in the state. It has funded more slots for treatment for
substance abuse and mental illness and increased the use of drug courts,
creating alternatives to prison. It has strengthened supervision of
probationers and parolees, by reducing caseloads for officers and
fashioning a system of swift and certain sanctions for violations.
We have proved in the past several decades that we can lock a lot of
people up. The challenge now is if we can do it more humanely and
intelligently and, ultimately, create less work for the
prison-industrial complex.
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2013 King Features Syndicate
Take Action California is a virtual, one-stop, for political activism, action alerts, fact sheets, and events in support of grassroots advocacy throughout the state of California.
Community News
Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Turning the prisons into rehab centers would benefit the system in a huge way. I am for it
ReplyDelete