V - Alternatives To Incarceration

The prison population in the United States has risen by 602% (this is not a typo, it is in fact six hundred two percent) from 1970 to 2009 and the incarceration rate has risen by 365% in the same time period.  The simplistic approach to social problems is incarceration and we also saw that that this approach disproportionately targets minorities, specifically African Americans males with an incarceration rate of 4,479 compared to 708 for white males (West,2010).  Comparing prison male population directly is not remarkable with whites at 33% and African Americans at 40.1% but compare this to the nation’s demographics and we have stumbled upon something profound.  Whites account for 79.5% of the population whereas African Americans only account for 12.9% (Census, 2010).

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2009
and the United States Census, 2010

  

We can fool ourselves or hide from reality for only so long before the reality of our current policy comes to fruition.  There are however, ideas and attempts to combat this problem before we reach the ultimate conflagration.  The movement or at least the idea is called Alternatives To Incarceration (ATI) which seeks ways to deincarcerate or excarcerate.

 There are many programs already developed and working toward this end.  Notably the community corrections movement which includes probation, parole and other rehabilitative programs such as drug-treatment, cognitive behavioral therapies, education, and restorative justice programs to name a few (Weissman, 2009).  But these programs have been around for decades and can’t even see their reflection in the prison industrial complex, much less make a dent.  Wiessman, a professor and advocate for policy changes and alternatives to incarceration says: 

ATI programs are limited by criminal laws and regulations, by institutional and structural racism, and by powerful economic agendas. Factors external to matters of crime prevention and public safety, such as the use of crime issues for political purposes and as a code word for race (known as the “Willie Horton” syndrome), as well as structural changes in American economic and social institutions, have made it difficult to reduce reliance on incarceration through ATI programs (Ibid, p. 247).

It seems to me that until we take an integrated approach to crime reduction by examining all facets of the individual, his behaviors, her social and cultural structure and values, and the structural deficiencies of our society will be able to effect change.  Ken Wilber, a pioneer and founder of Integral Theory, which is holistic and not a criminological theory provides a tool or an approach if you will to examining any situation and it is called the Four Quadrants (Wilber, 2006).   

Image From: integralhealthresources.com

If we use the Four Quadrants as a tool, we can place the individual as the focus and use the upper left quadrant, or the “I” to focus on what will be necessary, as a society, for us to respond to the criminal’s subjective person.  Here, we can effectively use tool such and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to assist with cognitive distortions-or thinking errors, learning disabilities, anger management, sexual desires or any other mental health issues that will make re-integration difficult for this individual.

If we use the upper right quadrant, or the “It” we can use this as a tool to look at the individual’s personal health, living situation, economic status, job situation, educational status, relationship status, gang involvement, or other risk factors for recidivism and use social tools to respond accordingly.

Using the lower left quadrant, “We” we can use this to focus on the person’s cultural, family, or social values and how these values will affect behavior or the likelihood of strain that these may place on the individual.

The last and I believe the most difficult, from the perspective of change is the structural and organizations that dominate our justice system and this is represented in the lower right quadrant or the “Its”.  It is these structural systems, for example, prison, education, and community correction that are what is required for there to be effective change. 

An integrated approach, without the desire for mass inefficient incarceration, looking at the individuals psychological and physical health, social structure and living conditions, morals and values, disabling risks and a relational model, as opposed to the current adversarial model will be the most productive.

I have over four years’ experience as a counselor working at a residential treatment program for youth with emotional disabilities and we use a relational-containing model and approach that focuses on compassion and effective skill building while building relationships.  And although our model is difficult it is very effective.  A model similar, geared for individuals that have deviated socially, for a plethora of reasons, which requires an integrated relational model to truly understand and provide social services that are best for the individual.

Crime rates are down significantly but incarceration rates are up dramatically.  Mass inefficient incarceration is not the answer, we cannot afford mass incarceration-financially or morally. 

Works Cited

United States Census Bureau. (2010). Retrieved from website: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0006.pdf

Weissman, M. (2009). Aspiring to the impractical alternatives to incarceration in the era of mass incarcerations. Retrieved from http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/Weissman-NYULawSocialChange33.pdf

West, H. C. (2010). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Justice website: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim09st.pdf

Wilber, K. (2006).http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/34. Retrieved from website: http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/34

Part IV - Recidivism

            Here is a campaign slogan, try it on for size, “I am soft on crime.”  How did that work-out for you?  Because in politics you are tough on crime or you are not; and anything seen as deviating from this norm of locking up as many people, for as long as possible-is going against the status quo and that constitutes a political death sentence (or life without the possibility of parole).

            But in reality, this decision, or more specifically this ideology is not that simple.  Incarceration, or within the criminal justice community, incapacitation, which is the limiting of people to reoffend by separating them from society is a well-defined and legitimate goal.  We see incapacitation as the societal response to murder, putting forth that we give a life sentence to protect society from any further atrocious acts.  But there are arguments to be made that incarceration only furthers the sophistication of some criminals and that they may become more invested into criminality upon release (Song & Lieb, 1993). 

            Others argue, specifically the Classical School of Criminology that offenders are rational actors and they use a hedonistic approach to criminal behavior; does the risk outweigh the benefit (Cullen & Agnew, 2003)?  Using this model it would only make sense that deterrence, in the form of general or specific, would affect crime.  Increasing the severity of the punishment for an anti-social behavior would decrease the likelihood of it being committed.  We see this approach today in the form of mandatory sentences and the three-strikes laws in an attempt to deter crime.  But according to Donald Ritchie from the Sentencing Advisory Council found that the “increase in the severity of punishment (particularly imprisonment) has no increased deterrent effect upon offending (Ritchie, 2011).

            This problem of being tough on crime, at the financial cost to the tax payer, at an unprecedented rate of racial disparity, is obviously not the solution.  There are too many areas of the criminal justice system that are starving for attention.  An excellent example is community based corrections and social services, especially within California with the recent passing of Assembly Bill 109 and other subsequent bills that requires the reduction of the prison population by placing the responsibility of incarceration and community correction on the local county.  This is a time where there are reallocation of scarce resources and we need to think hard if mass-inefficient-incarceration is where we want to continue.  Do we as a society want to place value on rehabilitation, reintegration, and education?  We can certainly be more productive with community based social services geared for employable skills and education, and education geared around productivity and not criminality that is so pervasive in our correctional institutions.

Works Cited

Cullen, C., & Agnew, F. (2003) Criminological Theory, Past to Present; Essential Readings. Second Edition. Roxbury Publishing Company. Los Angeles.

Ritchie, D. (2011). Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence. Sentencing Advisory Council.

Song, L., & Lieb, R. (1993). Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of Time Served. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Part III - Racial Disparity

                1 in every 8 African American males, aged 25-29 are currently in prison or jail.  29% of African American males will do time in a state or federal prison during his lifetime and a report found that 3 out of 4 African American males in Washington D.C. will go to jail or prison at some point. 

There are a number of different theories for this racial disparity in incarceration and two competing views are racial disparity in arrest and minority threat/conflict theory.  A predominant theory or one that I believe most Americans believe is legitimate is that the racial disparity in arrest rates is the cause in the racial disparity in incarceration rates.  More simply, if more African Americans are committing more crimes then it is only logical that there would be more African Americans incarcerated.

                The opposing theory of minority threat and conflict theory posits that majority groups hold claim to certain majority rights and privileges and that these minorities are “illegitimate trespassers” on these rights and privileges (Keen & Jacobs, 2009).   Using this theory one could argue that the criminal justices system is a tool used to disenfranchise minority groups in order to help the majority group retain its control of social structures. 

                Looking objectively at our circumstances I argue that perhaps it is both and more.  Travis Hirshi’s Social Bond Theory proclaims that people inherently desire to commit crime, by human nature, and it is social bonds of attachment, commitment, involvement and beliefs that deter people from illicit activities because they value those social bonds (Agnew & Cullen, 2002).  It’s not a stretch to find data to support that African Americans and other minority groups have some level of diminished social bonds and this may lead to more criminal activity.  For example the current unemployment rate, as of March 2012 for 16-19 year old African Americans is 40.5%, that is nearly double the rate of White Americans at 22.5% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).  These difficulties are not just limited to African Americans, in 2009 the Hispanic American high school dropout rate was 17.6% compared to 5.2% for White Americans (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

                In a future blog posting I will delve more deeply into the problems of economic disadvantage and how this directly leads to rates of inefficient incarceration that is fundamentally unsustainable but here I would like to approach a topic that may be difficult to fathom.  That perhaps there is truth to the theory of minority threat and social conflict theory.  I am not here to make a judgment on the intent of policy makers, one way or another, but since President Nixon’s “war on drugs” campaign began on July 17^th 1971 when he proclaimed that drug abuse was “public enemy number one” (Vulliamy, 2011) the incarceration rate has increased from 166.3 in 1970 to 773.3 in 2009 (Kessel, 2012).

                The connection that I am trying to make here is that the policy changes after the civil rights movement of the 1960s has had a disproportionate impact on minorities in this country.  According to Keen an d Jacobs from 1983-1999 “the mean African-American violent crime arrest rate was at least 7.7 times greater than the same rate for whites” and by the 1990s the “African-American-to-white prison admission ratio had grown to beyond ten” (2009).  Couple these facts with the fact that according to the a report by Ryan King from The Sentencing Project some 5 million people in 35 states were not eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential election (King, 2008).

                Again I am not here to say that this is by design, but there are some striking facts and either intended or unintended results from some of these policies.  I profess that for whatever the intent, we as a future generation owe it to the human civility and do what is morally right for our fellow man and determine if our current practices are what are best for this country.  I started my research with the intent to demonstrate that our policies of mass incarceration are financially unsustainable and the data is disheartening and I believe mass incarceration is morally unsustainable as well.

Works Cited

Agnew, R., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Criminological theory past to present. Roxbury Publishing Co: Los Angekes CA.

Keen, B., & Jacobs, D. (2009). Racial threat, partisan politics, and racial disparities in prison admissions: A panel analysis. Criminology, 47(1), 209-238.

Kessel, J. (2012, February 7). So what's the problem?. Retrieved from http://inefficientincarceration.blogspot.com/2012/02/so-whats-problem.html

King, R. (2008). The sentencing project. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012, April 6). Retrieved from Bureau of Labor Statistics website: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (2010, December 16).National center for education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

Vulliamy, E. (2011, July 23). The guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/24/war-on-drugs-40-years

Part II - History of Incarceration

In the previous post, I showed how the number of people incarcerated and the incarceration rate has grown at a pace that is unsustainable.   More importantly I pointed to the implacable social problem of using mass incarceration as an acceptable form of punishment and also eluded to how fiscally irresponsible this policy is.  In this post I will explore the history of incarceration and show how incarceration, as a form of punishment, was designed as a post-Enlightenment form of punishment that filled the void created by the vacancy of immoral treatment and punishments.

 

The Breaking Wheel

Historically jails only served as a holding facility designed to coerce people into paying his or her debt, awaiting trail, or awaiting corporal punishments.  Jail terms were often short, usually less than 24 hours because it was expensive and took members out of the colonial workforce.  Before 1750 mutilation and other forms of punishment were more common than imprisonment and incarceration was quite rare (Roth, 2005; p.65).

It was the Enlightenment of the 18th century that called for marked changes in humanitarian treatment.  Treatment that seems almost incomprehensible today were common place, for example “the catalogue of brutalities waged against the body of the offender in the name of punishment was extensive-flesh being torn with red-hot pincers, limbs being scorched with boiling sulphurs, and bodies being tortuously dismembered and burned” (Draper, 2000). 

Cesare Beccaria

Cesare Beccaria an 18th Century Italian philosopher wrote a treatise in 1764 called Dei delitti e delle pene, or On Crime and Punishment.  This work was fundamental and representative of the Enlightenment and called for penal reform and the abolishment of capital punishment and torturous forms of punishment.  

Incarceration rates grew modestly from the late 1700s until 1980.  In 1850 one in 29 Americans were incarcerated and that grew gradually up to one in 133 in 1980 (Calahan, 1986).  The rate of incarceration was actually declining in the 1960s until an increase in the crime rate of the 1970s and politicians became “tough on crime” and that the focus of incarceration shifted from rehabilitation to just exclusion (Foner, 2012; p. 1070).

Historic Incarceration Rate

The data supports my theory that the philosophical shifts in punishment opened the door for a more humane treatment of criminals.  The advocating for the elimination of capital punishment placed the states into a conundrum.  Previously these people were disposed of and were no longer threats or problems to the state.  With the shift away from capital punishment the question remained-what are we to do with these criminal?  The logical step was to move toward incarceration.  I understand this post-Enlightenment philosophy and I think it was a drastic step in the right direction but now we are placed in another conundrum. 

Is mass incarceration the most effective way to handle crime and criminals? 

Is society ready to focus again on rehabilitation? 

Are there more effective ways of reducing recidivism?  Are there humane programs that benefit the human beings that are incarcerated that may have little effect on recidivism but still hold value to society?

In the next installment of this blog I will introduce this issue of racial disparity in the justice system.  And if you think this is not an issue, I will leave you with this thought-African American males are incarcerated at a rate of 6.5 times that of white males and 1 in 9 African American males aged twenty to thirty-four are imprisoned.

Works Cited

Cahalan, M. W. (1986). Historical Corrections Statistics in the United States, 1850-1984. Rockville, Md.: Westat, Inc.

Draper, A. J. (2000). Cesare Beccaria's influences on English discussion of punishment, 1764-1789. History of European Ideas, 177-199.

Foner, E. (2012). Give Me Liberty; an American History. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Roth, M. P. (2005). Crime and Punishment; a History of the Criminal Justice System. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Part I - So What's The Problem?

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Albert Einstein

There are currently 7.1 million Americans under the supervision of correctional authorities in America.  That is one of every 33 Americans. Of those 7.1 million Americans over 2.3 million are incarcerated according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Glaze, 2011).          

In 1970 one in every 602 Americans were incarcerated, in 2009 it was one in every 129.  At a time when every penny of every expenditure are under heavy scrutiny many wonder if the current policy of being “tough on crime” –whatever that means- is even working.  

Compared to other developed nations the United States ranks dead last with 753 individuals incarcerated per 100,000 and that’s over three times the current prison rate of the next closest nation, Poland at 224 (Schmitt, Warner, & Gupta, 2010).

In California the average cost to incarcerate a single inmate is over $47,000 a year and in 2010 the state was operating at a $25.4 billion deficit (California Legislative Analyst’s Office) (Williams, 2010).  Anyone can see why at this time the insurmountable cost of incarceration is a topic of major controversy.  But in the posts to come I will explain why cost is not the only issue.  Since the 1960s we have increased the number of individuals incarcerated at a catastrophic rate, at an ever increasing cost with the hopes of curbing crime but the results do not justify the policy. 

In the next segment we will tackle the history of punishment and I will explain how incarceration is a relatively new phenomenon. In segments to follow we will explore in more depth recidivism and mental health.  To wrap up the series I will present current policy shifts, or at least present a case why we should shift to a more modern approach that is rhetoric free, since I am not seeking your vote or running for any office-at least not anytime soon.

Works Cited

(2011). California's Annual Cost to Incarcerate an Inmate in Prison. Sacramento, Ca.: Legislative Analyst's Office .

Glaze, L. E. (2011). Correctional Population In The United States, 2010. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Schmitt, J., Warner, K., & Gupta, S. (2010). The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration. Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Williams, J. (2010, 11 10). Retrieved 02 09, 2012, from Huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/california-budget-deficit_n_781848.html