Response Essay on Fixing America's Broken Prisons

The Reason Why We Punish Criminals

By Soomin

The US prison system is now criticized due to its huge population—according to The Week, the number of criminals in jail in the US is the same as one quarter of the world’s imprisoned population—and its inefficiency at preventing lawbreakers from breaking the rules again. The experts pointed out that this inability of the US prison system is caused by lengthy sentences for misdemeanors, particularly by the three-strike rule and the high five-year recidivism rates. States such as Texas and Hawaii are now making new policy to solve this problem especially by adopting new prison rules focused more on rehabilitation and less on punishment. Many states nowadays send drug criminals to re-hab programs rather than to prisons to help them better reintegrate into the society better. One famous example that jail is to correct and rehabilitate the prisoners not to punish is the one in Norway. Even Anders Breivik who killed 77 innocent people in 2011 lives in an ‘apartment prison’ with bedrooms and a kitchen.

Actually Norwegian way of dealing with convicted criminals is very extreme way that focus mostly on rehabilitation and the human right of the offenders. Still, however it gives a good point to discuss about the essence of punishment; why we punish criminals? Modern legal researchers said that there are mainly four purposes of legal punishment. Retribution, deterrence or public education, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Retribution means punishment as public revenge. Punishment as deterrence or public education is a kind of warning possible lawbreakers to think twice before they commit crimes. Legal penalties like incarceration are considered as the incapacitation of criminals since while they get separated from the society they will not break the rules. Finally, as criminals are also members of the society, rehabilitation is concerned so that their offending behaviors would corrected and they would behave well in the society after they get released from jails. When one purpose of the punishment, rehabilitation in this case, becomes the main reason for the whole then we cannot say we meet the goal of punishment.

Moreover, when it comes to ‘public revenge’ the controversy over ongoing reforms on prison system becomes more complicated. The reason why we feel resistance against the Norwegian prison system in spite of the fact that the five-year recidivism rates is relatively low in there, is that we do not see the criminals are paid back by what they have done to others. We think if somebody hurt others then he/she should be hurt as well. This is the fundamental of the justice we believe in.

People have established this kind of justice since people started to make social norms, the very beginning of the human history when Hammurabi stated “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Punishing rule-offenders is a way of paying back, establishing the justice. In other words, revenge has been a means of justice and one purpose of punishing criminals throughout history. People, especially state actors, however, prefer a so-called civilized way of revenge; let the government do it for the people. The concept of public revenge emerged as governments, modern or not, gained power to establish the law and take their authority to force people to follow it. The establishment of public revenge and the banning private revenge are like two sides of the same coin—governments enact revenge as the representatives of justice rather than allowing people to take revenge on others personally.

This means governments which make private revenge illegal have the responsibility to take revenge instead of the victims. The banning of private revenge can be justified when the governments, which are the only agent that hold the right to revenge, take responsibility for it. Less tough sentences on trivial crimes would be welcomed because the damage they do are often so small or sometimes there is no obvious victim of those offences; for example, drug crimes. However, for some serious crimes like murder, fraud, rape, terrorism, and so on, this is a totally different situation. Governments have the right to impose tough sentences, and they hold the responsibility to punish them. They are the only one who can take the revenge for the victims and the left families.

Not Revenge, But A Chance to Change

By Sr. Vocata

  There are a lot of people who believe that we should take “An eye for an eye”, but Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only makes the world blind.” In the same way, we should focus on a prisoner’s rehabilitation as a chance to change, not to enact revenge.

From the moment people wake up in the morning until people fall asleep, everyone faces many choices. Somebody could choose to go to a school, to get a job, and to meet a partner; likewise, somebody else could choose to join a gang, to take drugs, and to commit a homicide. Every result is made by our choice, so the responsibility for the choice force to ourselves, even if we are forced to make some choice under the threat of death. Therefore, incarceration of criminals is the result of their choice, and they must be responsible for their crimes and to the rule of society. I believe that, however, if the purpose of incarceration is just revenge by society, than a prisoner won't learn meaning of the positive role of society. Because of this, we should give them a chance to change their life. Truly, it is the best way to teach them to choose new honest life, not a crime. To choose the right way, it is necessary that we give inmates the physical and mental motivation to inmates to live a new life, and to take the chance to achieve to the best of their ability and to take up their positive role in society. Jeff Smith (2012), who went a prison for 1 year for covering up an election law violation, made a TED Talk about his experience, in prison, he met a lot of brilliant people who were good at business,  and although their spoken words were not academic, their ideas were like lessons in any MBA’s first semester. Most of them wanted to live a new life after release from prison, but in prison, they couldn’t learn skills to help them rich their potential. If we could organize programs to help them succeed we wouldn’t need to expand prisons. For instance, according to the article Fixing America’s Broken Prisons, the proposal, devised by a UCLA team, is to build housing plan for prisoners which could, before their official release, inspire the inmates’ reintegration (The Week, 2015). 

In Korea, recently, there has been a contract between Justice Department and Defense Business Agency for improving the prison’s techniques to help with rehabilitation as well as to reduce the budget for Defense Department personnel  (Korea Correctional Service, 2017). In our congregation, MSC, we have a special ministry for  prisoners. The sister who is in charge of the ministry said, "When I met them, they were such angels. If they had different family or education backgrounds, they might not have been in prison." This story made me convinced that prisoners should have at least one chance to change their life. 

 In sum, there are two ways to deal with prisoners, one is punishment, the other one is rehabilitation. When we make our best effort to rehabilitate prisoners rather than to take revenge on them, it could give hope for the inmates to live a new life.

Looking for a Solution

by Trieu Nguyen

America imprisons more people than another country in over the world. This country has to pay a lot to run the prisons. It is said that many Americans think that putting the offender in jail is a good solution to keep peace and security in this country. This essay tries to show that incarceration is not the best way to deal with offenders because it costs a lot, is not humane, and has not been proven effective.

Firstly, incarceration requires the United States to pay a lot for running and maintaining the system of prisons. It is clear that to lock up many prisoners, the American government has to spend money to house, feed, clothe and care for prisoners as well as to pay the salary and other costs for those who run prisons. The article "Fixing America’s Prisons" explains that taxpayers “spend more than $80 billion a year to keep all people in locked up” (The week, 2015). Therefore, it is reasonable to think about several alternative solutions so that the government can decrease tax for citizens.

In addition, because many people are locked up,  they cannot contribute to the common good of society. In a certain way, they become the burden of society instead of making a good contribution to the society. Some may argue that when the bad people have been locked up, our society is safe and stable; consequently, the economy can grow. I totally agree with that argument; however, we need to keep in mind the fact that when offenders are locked up, their future could be closed and they find it difficult to re-entry and contribute positively to their family as well as their society. This means that incarceration not only limits a current and active participation of an individual in the society but makes them difficult to participate actively and productively in the society in future.

Secondly, it seems that incarceration is an inhumane system if we think that it is the only and best way to deal with offenders. The fact that we just want to put them into jail demonstrates that we do not or do not want to believe in their ability to convert and become a good person. This mentality could come from the “throwaway” culture of today's society that discards anyone who is unproductive or harmful to our society as Pope Francis frequently says. Republican former Texas Gov. Perry agrees that “when we lock people up, we never give them a second choice at redemption” (The week, 2015). Therefore, it seems that America is negating some certain values of human beings. When some occasionally do something wrong, they no longer have a chance to convert and re-entry society. In a certain way, it could say that they are thrown away without hope for a better future for themselves as well as for their family. In my opinion, this policy of America reflects a negative point of view about human nature. As a result, this could affect social relationships negatively, especially on the education for young people. A more humane system requires that prisoners are treated like people. They need to be given a chance to become a better person as well as to have a hope that they would benefit society when they get out.

It is justified that some crimes have to punish with sentences of prison for long-term but this is not reasonable in every case. It is necessary to distinguish a different kind of crimes. It is not fair when we consider burglary, robbery equal with rapist or homicide. For example, Leandro Andrade was convicted of stealing children’s food and was sentenced to two 25 to – life term (The week, 2015). In order to respect human dignity, it is necessary to take account of different circumstances relating to an offender. These could be the intention of offenders and the circumstances in which the offenders have committed crimes. Besides that, some alternative solutions need to be applied such as probation program or re-entry program.

Finally, incarceration has not been proven effective. Its efficacy is still debatable. It is difficult to find a direct correlation between incarceration and crime levels. Some argue that when crimes are punished by putting in jail people would be afraid and don’t dare to commit crimes. However, we don’t have many evidences to verify that claim. For that reason, we need to find out other solutions to deal with offenders and this process needs to be done step by step. The kinds of crimes and circumstances as well as human dignity need to be considered for those who involve in process of making this decision.

Deincarceration VS Incarceration

By Misun

  The United States needs to reform its prison system because too many criminals are in prison. According to the article of Fixing America's Broken Prisons in 2015, because of the "crack epidemic" of the 1980s and the harsh "three strike" systems, the U.S. crime rates have been skyrocketing. These strict regulations have been used to justify disproportionately long prison terms for minor offenders. It is unreasonable for the criminals, and for the government which has to pay for the operation prison. Therefore, it needs to change, especially the prison sentences for drug crimes, burglars, and less serious crimes but not on felonies, rapists and violent offensives. The U.S should help misdemeanor criminals to live independently in their life rather than just put them away from a long time.

  In addition, the U.S "recidivism" rates are very high. The author claimed that 60 percent of inmates released from prison find themselves back behind bars. The article said that the U.S. government should give more chances to inmates to reintegrate into society after they released. It is a good idea and will decrease the criminal rates. The author gave some examples of states such as Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana, which are red and conservative states, which have gradually expanded probation programs, gradual re-entry programs, and drug treatment for inmates. This is a good prison reform also may help to reduce criminal rates. Giving offenders a chance to learn new skills can be a good solution to reduce recidivism. In South Korea, for instance, prisoners are given the chance to learn one technical skills such as mechanics, cooking and aesthetic techniques like hair beauty. There are even some factories in which criminals learn to work together in the factory which in prison, and where they get make their own incomes from the labor in the factories and also government can get some profits from operating the factories. The U.S prison system could learn from other developed countries like S.Korea and enact some prison policy reform to make better solutions. 

Society-Prison: single ticket or return ticket?

by Andrea Bonavita

The world of the U.S. prison described in our Article of the Week – “Fixing America’s Broken Prisons” – makes me believe that incarceration is not the best way to deal with offenders.

American prisons hold a population grown up seven times in the last 35 years (up to 2.4 million people). Even the number of recidivists remains extremely high: the 60% of those who paid their debt to society find themselves returning in prison within three years. As shown by the author, at first we could think that having jails full of offenders is the warranty of low rates of crime; however, criminologists haven’t found yet a direct connection between people behind bars and levels of crime. On the other hand and despite of its name, the “correction” system doesn’t seem able to offer to the inmates a true reintegration into society.

Prison and society seem to be worlds related one another just for necessity, not with effective interaction. From the point of view of the Law, punishment works: it is the justifiable compensation from the offense caused to a member of a certain society. From the point of view of the human community, if punishment can redress an injustice, in itself it doesn’t help to mend the break between the culprit and the society that condemned him.

Where alternatives to prison has been tried, the outcomes have been good. The author cites the case of states that created mandating drug treatments for non-violent offenders (Texas, Kansas) or adopted periods of probation (Hawaii). The UCLA has been working on an important project that wants to encourage inmates at the end of their punishment to re-enter the society providing apartments and GPS bracelets. The aim of all these solutions is the increasing of the responsibility of the prisoners to make them more ready to re-enter into society.

If we consider the prison as the final stage of the process of Justice (imputation, trial, judgment), the process of reintegration covers the opposite way to rebuild the original situation. In this perspective, punishment is just the beginning of a long process that must have the society as its goal. One could have the opinion that locking people up and throw them away forever can be the best solution (it is the opinion against which the former Texas Governor cited in the article struggled when he was in charge). However, this implies the belief in a society in which there is an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’: a very questionable position. The human community is one, without any kind of ‘outside’, and it is even composed by those members who have decided, willingly or not, to act sometimes against the community.

The development of re-entry processes seems to be an effective way for the good of the whole society and for the future of every offender.