| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Who Belongs In Prison? |
>
> | The Persistence of Prisons: An Exposition of Economic Foundations |
| | |
|
<
< | -- By KeithEdelman - 27 Feb 2009 |
>
> | -- By KeithEdelman - 19 Apr 2009 |
| | |
|
<
< | Overview
“When we put people who murder other people in prisons – where, believe me, many of them, indeed, do belong – we don’t do it because they’re sane. We do it for other reasons.” – Robinson |
>
> | Introduction |
| | |
|
<
< | Human imprisonment is a very serious and costly endeavor. To warrant such an undertaking, our system’s goals, justifications and effectiveness must be properly analyzed. Here, a brief explanation of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation theories is followed by an examination of their soundness and applicability in our current system. In light of the results, a new principle is formulated and a solution proposed. |
>
> | Our criminal justice system is failing to achieve its purported goals. Even more concerning is how our commitment to imprisonment flies in the face of the only proper purpose for the “correctional system”. In light of the small chance of immediate change, this paper examines a particularly relevant explanation for the persistence of prisons – adherence to free market ideology. |
| | |
|
<
< | Traditional justifications and goals |
>
> | Brief Examination of Justifications for Imprisonment |
| | |
|
<
< | Brief Explanation |
>
> | Retribution theory, a common goal of punishment, assumes the “criminal” is indeed guilty of a crime. This, in turn, requires a reliable method of fact determination. Our fact-finding system, however, is far from the verifiable science that we envision. Even if retribution is assumed to be a proper goal, our current system does little to validate its assumptions. |
| | |
|
<
< | Retribution is commonly cited to support judicial punishment. Imposing a punishment proportionate to the crime is thought not only justified, but required of a moral society. Imprisonment is also deemed proper. Kant claimed a thief “must yield his powers to the state to be used in penal labour, into a condition of slavery.” |
>
> | Deterrence theory is similarly conditioned on questionable propositions. Human beings are rarely “rational-actors.” This simplification ignores the many dimensions of the human experience: adherence to seemingly foolish social scripts, the lack of free will within organizations, and the overall effects of minds on minds. After all, why would 63% of convicts freely get re-arrested? |
| | |
|
<
< | Prison is also credited with deterring future criminal behavior. One form relies on rational-actor theory. It is believed that humans will incorporate the costs of imprisonment into their efficiency calculations that determine conduct. Alternatively, imprisonment is sometimes thought to condition humans to avoid criminal behavior. If a negative stimulus – prison – is presented (or a positive stimulus – freedom – is removed) in conjunction with criminal behavior, convicts might learn to avoid committing these transgressions. |
>
> | Incapacitation, assuming individuals cannot change, seems proper. If an individual will only harm, incarceration seems justified on both moral and utilitarian grounds. But this is only appropriate for those who cannot be rehabilitated. |
| | |
|
<
< | Some support imprisonment on the theory of incapacitation. If the person will only do harm, society is thought better off with him/her behind bars. |
>
> | Most people, with proper support, can improve. The rehabilitative effect of our current prison system, however, is questionable at best. For instance, in 1997, only one in ten state inmates received drug treatment. |
| | |
|
<
< | Finally, prison is thought to rehabilitate criminals. Society will be better off morally and practically after individual reform. Although some might believe deprivation of liberty itself facilitates reformation, rehabilitation is most often associated with services administered to inmates within the prison. |
| | |
|
>
> | The Only True Goal |
| | |
|
<
< | How are we doing? |
>
> | If deterrence is likely impossible, what role does prison serve? Caging humans is not likely to rehabilitate. Incapacitation only applies to the few incapable of positive change. The only human beings who “belong” in prison, therefore, are those who, even with full rehabilitative efforts, will only do harm. |
| | |
|
<
< | Our current structure must be able to survive an examination of its effectiveness in fulfilling these goals. Furthermore, the theories themselves must be sound. |
>
> | Unfortunately, the medium-term likelihood of sensible reform is quite low for many reasons (e.g. the desire to control the poor. As such, we must investigate the foundations of society’s desire to imprison. Understanding why is the gateway to learning how to enact change. |
| | |
|
<
< | Retribution theory assumes the “criminal” is indeed guilty of a crime. “Punishment … must in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime.” This, in turn, requires a reliable method of fact determination. Retribution theory cannot justify punishing the innocent; it likely implies that such punishment is morally wrong. Our fact-finding system is far from the verifiable science that we would like. Frank would say our judicial system utilizes legal magic to avoid the uneasiness of uncertainty. Even if retribution is assumed to be a proper goal, our current system does little to validate its assumptions. |
| | |
|
<
< | Deterrence theory is similarly conditioned on questionable propositions. Human beings rarely act as a “rational-actor”. This simplification ignores the many dimensions of the human experience: adherence to seemingly foolish social scripts, the lack of free will within organizations, and the overall effects of minds on minds. To expect an individual to know the law and behave as homo economicus, or the “Thinking Man”, is unrealistic. After all, why would 63% of convicts freely get re-arrested? |
>
> | How Did We Get Here? |
| | |
|
<
< | Effective operant conditioning requires the stimulus be consistently paired with the undesired behavior. But imprisonment is neither consistently nor immediately paired with criminal behavior. A myriad of factors (often power and wealth) can eliminate the “proper” application of the stimulus. This might actually encourage humans to behave in other undesired ways. |
>
> | One underpinning of our infatuation with incarceration is our adherence to free market ideology. This investigation is particularly relevant with our economic system on the verge of collapse. |
| | |
|
<
< | Incapacitation, assuming individuals cannot change, seems proper. If an individual will only harm, incarceration seems justified on both moral and utilitarian grounds; isn't it wrong and ineffective to keep such a person in mainstream society? But most people, with proper support, can improve. The rehabilitative effect of our current prison system, however, is questionable at best. For instance, in 1997, only one in ten state inmates received drug treatment. This systematic neglect to rehabilitation has come in the face of ample evidence (i.e. educating inmates reduces recidivism) that a commitment to rehabilitation works. |
>
> | Our Economic Theory's Social Stigmatization |
| | |
|
<
< | So who belongs? |
>
> | Since 1980, the general economic philosophy of the United States has endorsed free markets with minimal government intervention. Simply put, nearly all regulation was believed to hurt the economy. If everyone works hard and in their own self-interest, the theory goes, then the markets will efficiently allocate resources. |
| | |
|
<
< | We should focus on a goal often cited but rarely achieved: bettering our society. Retribution should yield to social improvement. Morally, it seems questionable to hurt fellow citizens rather than help them. Practically, it makes little sense. |
>
> | This disapproval of governmental intervention stigmatizes those who receive government services. The relationship between the individual and the state is fundamentally altered. Americans who require assistance not only are “imperfect” themselves, but hurt the rest of society by requiring inefficient action. Criminals are such a class. Unlike the truly need who seem to elicit some sympathy, those who require government action due to “fault” of their own are often branded with disdain (see attached, p. 271). |
| | |
|
<
< | If deterrence is likely impossible, what role does prison serve? Caging humans is not likely to rehabilitate. Incapacitation only applies to the few incapable of positive change. In light of these conclusions, I propose a new theory: the only human beings who “belong” in prison are those who, even with full rehabilitative efforts, will only do harm. |
>
> | Due to this characterization, facilitated by free market ideology, criminals are susceptible to mass incarceration for two reasons. First, incapacitating “criminals” can be justified on utilitarian grounds. Caging “bad” people is thought to rid society of crime. Second, their removal from society facilitates the repression of cognitive dissonance. Americans who profess freedom but insist on the deprivation of liberty for their fellow citizens need to extinguish this logical inconsistency. Keeping these individuals far from sight, for long periods of time, allows “true Americans” to live without much discomfort. This is demonstrated in the prevalence of the NIMBY syndrome with respect to prisons and the explosion of prison construction in rural areas. |
| | |
|
<
< | Proposal |
>
> | Perceived Functional Benefits of Prisons |
| | |
|
<
< | Every “criminal” should be entitled to full rehabilitation services. Proper drug programs, education, healthcare, therapy, etc. should be fairly afforded prior to imprisonment. If at the end of a comprehensive, rehabilitative effort a few individuals will still only do harm, there is no alternative but to place them in the custody of the state. |
>
> | Mass incarceration seems to serve practical purposes in the free market paradigm of the United States. Many communities and their politicians claim that prisons foster economic growth. So long as the government acts as a rational, market actor, the theory predicts the formation of a new industry, creating jobs, tax-revenue, etc. Disregarding the obvious inattention to the inmates’ needs, many studies (e.g. here and here) have illustrated prisons' ineffectiveness. Nevertheless, mass incarceration is widely believed to foster economic growth in America. One thing prisons certainly do achieve is artificial inflation of crucial population statistics. |
| | |
|
<
< | This structure would help, not hurt fellow citizens. This proposal does not rely on the troublesome rational-actor model. Rather, economically speaking, it would shrink the market of potential transgressors. Moreover, an installation of full rehabilitative programs coupled with a slash in prisons will likely reduce costs. |
>
> | Prisons also have another practical function that fits snugly into the free market system: cheap labor. Requiring prisoners to work cuts costs (a “rational” act) and simultaneously provides inexpensive labor for outside corporations. For example, Virginia authorized joint ventures between prisons and private businesses, proclaiming that prisons are “Wide Open to Business,” and have “willing, experienced workers [with] no employee benefit packages to fund." Having a constant supply of free labor allows American businesses to fine-tune their labor costs with no risk of losing warm bodies. The incentive for mass incarceration is all too obvious. |
| | Conclusion |
|
<
< | Our criminal justice system should maximize social improvement and minimize deprivation of liberty. Rehabilitation, which does not require imprisonment, is the ultimate goal. If this is not possible, prison is the last resort; such limited confinement is properly supported by a moral and utilitarian necessity to incapacitate. As such, our criminal justice system should afford every individual a right to full rehabilitative efforts. Only the few incapable of positive change “belong” in prison. To do otherwise would harm us all. |
>
> | While many might agree that rehabilitation should be the ultimate goal of our criminal justice system, the reality is that mass incarceration is unlikely to subside anytime soon. The first step in achieving such massive change is to understand why this phenomenon has developed. The recent devotion to free market ideology provides numerous answers. Stigmatized by the corollaries of this paradigm, inmates are incarcerated to provide mental and purported practical benefits for society. In light of the recent economic meltdown, this analysis will hopefully facilitate a reexamination of our criminal justice system and produce much needed social change. |
| | |
|
<
< |
- This is all very well, but there isn't the slightest chance on earth of its happening. The reasons are many; the enterprise of imprisoning a significant fraction of the young men at the bottom of our social structure has created incumbent beneficiaries through the "prison-industrial complex," and the attitude of the electorate is not going to grow less prison-minded as economic conditions grow harsher and crime rates rise.
- Given that you know the medium-term likelihood of the only sensible reform is zero, what comes next? That's really where you need to take the revision.
|
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
>
> |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="LCP63DWinterSpring2000P257.pdf" attr="" comment="Rethinking Welfare Rights, Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, Duke University" date="1240164582" name="LCP63DWinterSpring2000P257.pdf" path="LCP63DWinterSpring2000P257.pdf" size="317368" stream="LCP63DWinterSpring2000P257.pdf" user="Main.KeithEdelman" version="1" |
|---|
|