Mentally ill in prison outnumber those in hospitals

(64) Justice-Not-Politics

(64) Justice-Not-Politics

every person in prison is not guilty of a crime

July 13, 2012 292 EXONERATED
	Madeleine, I’m writing to let you know about important news from Washington that I know you’ll be excited to hear. Yesterday, lawmakers in both houses of Congress introduced legislation that will help prevent wrongful convictions by bringing reliable, science-based standards to forensic evidence. Leaders of both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee took a tremendous step towards improving the criminal justice system by introducing legislation that would ensure that forensic sciences are based on the best science. The bills would put experts working at science-based agencies in charge of conducting research to ensure that forensic science disciplines have a strong scientific backing and are governed by consistent and meaningful standards. The bills are designed to address problems that were outlined in a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report that found that, with the sole exception of DNA evidence, none of traditional forensic science disciplines – including hair microscopy, fingerprint, bullet and bloodstain analysis – have been scientifically validated. This has resulted in practices that both hamper law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes and that have led to wrongful convictions. Faulty forensics have contributed to a staggering 50% of the DNA exonerations. I am especially thankful to the lead sponsors of the two bills, Sen. John D. Rockefeller and Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Donna Edwards and Daniel Lipinski. The Innocence Project urges Congress to act quickly to pass this legislation and to develop and support mechanisms for the practical implementation of the resulting research and standards.

Why Prison Doesn’t Work: An Essay

Why Prison Doesn’t Work: An Essay

Originally written for a competition by the Howard League for Penal Reform for essays on the topic of “Why Prisons Don’t Work”. You can read the winning (and excellent) essayshere.

It is often said “prison works”. It is less often said what it means for a prison to “work”. Traditionally prisons have been argued to serve at least one of three functions: to punish the prisoner, to protect the public, and to rehabilitate the offender to prevent them committing another crime. However, on closer inspection, the reasons given seem to have secondary important to the need for society to feel like something is being done, that justice is being served, that law and order is being kept, with near-total disregard for those who find themselves shut out of society with no hope of redemption.

The first function given for prison, punishment, has always seemed to have the least force. Setting aside the dubious civility of a society which seeks revenge upon its citizenry, is spending £30,000 a year on keeping someone in prison when most prisoners really hurting them, or us? (1) Rehabilitation, a far more worthy aim, is chronically underfunded and ultimately useless in a system which is often referred to as a “university of crime”, where young impressionable offenders quickly pick up new skills from veteran prisoners and criminals and escalate their offences when they are released. Which leaves the protection of the public as the remaining reason, and the reason that prisons came about in the first place. Imprisoning those who threaten others seems slightly more justifiable. But this has to be balanced with the human rights of those convicted of crimes themselves – can we justify the imprisonment of such people? Does our society ultimately benefit from keeping people away under lock and key?

In 1993, the psychologist Terrie Moffett published a paper in the Psychological Review that argued that there were two fundamental types of prisoner – the adolescent-limited and the lifelong-persistent. The adolescent-limited are young, primarily men, who commit crime to support themselves, for fun, as part of a gang, or other reasons, who eventually mature, settle down and give up the lifestyle that was contributing to their criminality. The second type, lifelong-persistent, are people who commit crimes casually and often, moving through the criminal justice system in a perpetual cycle of crime-arrest-conviction-incarceration-release-crime and rarely, if ever, breaking out of that cycle. There are a variety of reasons both types end up in prison, including poor education, drug addiction, racism (young black men are twice as likely to go to prison than to university. (2)) and mental health difficulties, which are again rarely, if ever, given the attention they deserve.

Neither type of prisoner are prevented from committing more crime or given the chance to change their lives through serving prison sentences. The adolescent-limited, young and not really thinking about the consequences of their actions, find themselves permanently disadvantaged for the rest of their lives; upon release from prison, they struggle to find housing, meaningful employment and integration into society. It becomes easier to continue to commit more crimes to support themselves. Some will settle down and find councils and employers to give them a chance in life, but their potential, especially the potential of young black men, is severely compromised by serving a prison sentence, a physical block to their life’s progress as well as a permanent addition to their CV. Likewise, the lifelong-persistent are let down by our society. To deal with the reasons for people returning to prison over and over again, we require drug treatment programmes, mental health treatment, adult education, housing programmes, and ways of giving people pride and hope in themselves. But, when regarding that list, how much of it can be achieved effectively in a prison?

However, the rhetoric of the redtops of this country considers such proposals merely “pampering criminals”. Their attitude is largely that prison is for punishing people that society disapproves of. But if by prison “working”, we mean “reduces crime”, the only crime reduced is that which the imprisoned would have committed while doing time – as mentioned earlier, the recidivism rate for people who have been to prison more than twice is nearly 70%, so clearly prison does not “teach people a lesson”. But most advocates of prison do not care about that: they want to “see justice served” as opposed to actually seeing crime reduced and those who commit crime changing their lives. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were both locked up for ten years – one has now been rehabilitated and is trying to build a new life, one has gone back into prison for breaking his parole. The press wants to see them both imprisoned at great cost to the taxpayer regardless of their current circumstances, and with the broad support of their readers, it seems. With such calls, can we really say society cares about whether prison works or not?

Ultimately, the way we treat prisoners as a society reflect on our humanity. Dostoevsky famously wrote “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” However, it is also the mark of a functional, thriving society that its citizens feel safe and protected from those who would do them harm. People who kill, rape, steal, assault and engage in other anti-social behaviour are causing us as individuals and as a community harm and need to be dealt with. We need evidence-based solutions to tackle the problems that leads people to commit crime. But is prison really effective at this? Can prison deal with poverty, drug addiction, racism, patriarchy, social breakdown, senses of insecurity, resentment, or entitlement? Unlikely. Perhaps prisons “work” to give us a sense of satisfaction that something has been done – but do prisons “work” to create a safer, more secure society that protects its citizens, prevents crime, and rehabilitates those citizens who find themselves on the wrong side of the law? The evidence would suggest that as a society we have got our definition very wrong.

(1) Kanazawa, Satishi (24th August, 2008), “When crime rates go down, recidivism rates go up”, Psychology Today. Accessed 19th April, 2010.
(2) Smart Justice (2004), “The Racial Justice Gap: Race and the Prison Population Briefing”, pg 2.

Quality vs Quanity

Metal on metal, the sound reverberating through the brain; the very sound frightening.What next for those locked away for an indeterminate time?
Guards who resemble archetype 20th century SS officers more than 21st century enlightened correctional officers, food you won’t feed your pet and living conditions that make the slums seem like gold coast homes.
What can a family do? Maybe we cannot change the big things but the little things that contribute to the quality of life can be changed.
WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THEIR LIVES.
It is the little things that do make a difference; sending paper so they can write rather than having to buy it at 35% over retail in the commissary, is one way. It is allowed, there is no law that says it is contraband, as long as it is in the original wrapping.
Lobbying so they can order shoes, especially work boots, from another source than commissary as long as the shoes are within the guidelines allowed by the DOC, instead of 35% over retail.
We can lobby IDOC and the Governor’s office to stop allowing Consolidated to charge usury phone rates.
I know IDOC earns money from Consolidated; however, they only earn a small percentage, why not let the contract go out for bid and, their earnings would be the same but the rates charged the families would be significantly lower. Families who least can afford the expense of a phone call from prison is paying 300% of the normal tariff.
Call the Governor’s office and ask who is being paid off by Consolidated, call your local paper, call your representative, if we don’t nothing will happen. 217-782-7884.
Someone must have been paid. One of Blagojevich’s largest contributors has the contract to provide the women’s prisons with makeup sold through the commissary, doubt they would have been so generous if the commissary sales were not a money machine.

Help Wanted $150,000.00 per year+free meals

Direct quote from Pantagraph
State prison guards doubling their salaries through mandatory OT

SPRINGFIELD -- When the state’s new prison chief heads out to tour each of the state’s lock-ups in the coming days, there’s a good chance he’ll meet guards who are making nearly as much money as he is.

Even though top pay for correctional officers is about $55,000 annually, a new analysis of Illinois Department of Corrections salaries shows more than 40 prison guards earned more than $100,000 in 2008.

For more of this story, click on or type the URL below:

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2009/06/13/news/doc4a344e0deb0f7756051679.txt

Happy Birthday

Yesterday I visited two friends at Dwight Correctional, a maximum security women’s prison. It is not a nice place, I don’t mean physically, the architecture is fantastic, I mean the atmosphere is obsessive. The air is heavy and the general feeling is one of despair, but it is a prison so as an adult, you do not expect it to be cheerful.
The visiting room is a feeble attempt at normalcy, it is stark and uninviting. The bathrooms have toilet seats that need repair and lack doors for privacy. The guards sit high at a desk on a dais and counting the minutes till you leave, and they can return to their gossip, visitors’ presence an unwelcome intrusion on their lives.
The visitors scatted at tables their faces painted with yellow ‘happy faces ‘attempting brave faces making the best of their situations.
Bobbing in this sea are exceptions, the children, dragged to visit their Mothers, Aunts, Grandmothers; they do not realize they have stepped into an alternate reality. Dressed in their best and told to behave as if in church.
They do not understand that the rules are different behind the prison gate. Children do not comprehend that what is right outside the gate can be very wrong inside the gate.
There are rules if you are to visit a prisoner, and the rules are for the protection and safety of society. They are to prevent the passing of drugs and weapons, the rules are there for a good reason. They are necessary and must be enforced.
This is not about these rules. This is about a boy.
A boy whose name I do not know but who was visiting with his five siblings and his Mother, dressed in their Sunday best, the girl’s hair in cornrows with white bows, sitting perfectly straight you could not help but marvel at the wonderful job the family must be doing. They were so perfectly behaved I comment to the Mother how wonderfully behaved they were, and how I hoped my children when a similar age would have behaved as well. She must be doing a wonderful job, congrats to her and her family.
She said Thank you and by the way it was the boy’s 6th birthday.
I said happy birthday and that it deserved a soda pop did he wish, with his Mother’s permission, to pick one. The prisoner they were visiting was not there at this time.
He did so I proceeded to ask him to accompany me and pick out what he wanted. He got up and put his hand in mine. The officer on duty called me over and berated me as if I was a piece of dirt that ‘I could not talk to the boy and it was wrong, I was very wrong to even talk to them let alone offer to buy a poop, it was against the rules.
I said what rules there was not a prisoner around and it was his birthday, If I made a mistake I was sorry just let but him the pop and I will not do it again. She said was wrong told me to ‘go sit’ and called her supervisor.
I sat, the boy went back to his table without his birthday treat.
I have a feeling the little boy has suffered many disappointments in his life and this was just another broken promise. I realize it is a minor incident but I couldn’t help but wonder if this incident coupled with others might result in his being the one visited behind the gates later in his life.
I know it is a stretch, but isn’t life the culmination of many small incidents? Aren’t we who we are today, because of what we experienced yesterday?
I wish I could have brought that soda. I hope society doesn’t wish it too.
By the way I checked the rules, no cross visiting with prisoners; it does not say anything about visitors talking to each other.