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.