Incarceration, who’s problem is it?

M M Moore June 2015 Incarceration, Who's Problem Is It? How a society addresses crime and criminal offenders is called penal or criminal administration and includes, among other things: incarceration, rehabilitation, probation and parole, monetary fines and civil disabilities. In our society, 'out of sight and out of mind ' is a theme prevalent within both the public and the criminal justice system. Once society 's immediate needs are met by incarcerating and removing the offender from the public, few people care to ask "what happens next?" However, the rate of recidivism in many states reveals how this 'out of sight out of mind ' attitude has rendered incarceration ineffectual at meeting the goals of criminal administration. I. Statistics There are many factors that comprise the statistics on recidivism. How the group conducting the study defines recidivism can alter the numbers dramatically, and also, whether the report only includes offenders whom have committed new offenses or probation and parole violators as well. One thing that is abundantly clear, in every state across the nation, is that incarceration usually only provides a temporary solution to a permanent problem. The United States is plagued by a massive social problem, manifest by the fact that we have only 5% of the world 's total population and 25% of the world 's prison population. (Booker) In 2010 The Center For Economic Policy and Research reported that there were 2.3 million people incarcerated in America and an additional 5.1 million people on probation and parole. Moore 2 With 2.3 million prisoners, and an average cost of about $29,000.00 per prisoner per year (Booker), the U.S. spends more than $66 billion dollars a year on incarceration. The cost of incarceration in 2010 was $ 80 billion. (Horwitz). In my home state of Alaska two out of three prisoners being released after serving time for a felony conviction will be re-incarcerated within three years. (Sentencing Project). Unfortunately, many states share this trend. At least 12 other states had a rate of recidivism of 50% or more, and 10 additional states have a rate of 40% or more. (Sentencing Project) Continuing to use a system with such dismal results, without making some changes, is like taking a pill for chronic headaches that more often than not doesn 't cure your headaches and will likely aggravate their cause and increase their frequency. Calling it illogical would be a fantastic understatement. Under Alaska 's Constitution, the principles of reformation and necessity of protecting the public constitute the touchstones of penal administration. (Alaska Const.) The Supreme Court of Alaska declared, 45 years ago, that one of the objectives of this constitutional mandate is the "rehabilitation of the offender into a non-criminal member of society." (State vs. Chaney). Nowhere in the constitution, nor in case law, does it say that this right is enjoyed only by criminal offenders. Instead, this right is enjoyed by all citizens of the state, as it rightfully should be, because rehabilitation promotes safer communities and lower rates of crime and violence. Is the public 's right to have criminals rehabilitated being denied by a system that fails to achieve better results than 66% recidivism? The goal of rehabilitation promotes the goal of protecting the public, because if an offender rejoins society with the same level of education, job and life skills and prospects for Moore 3 adequate housing and employment, then he or she stands a much higher chance of reoffending. In contrast, an offender whom rejoins society after improving his or her education, job and life skills, and is then able to find a place to live and employment that meets his or her needs, will, in turn, likely not reoffend. 2. The Department of Corrections^ Role It 's easy to point fingers at the Department of Corrections (DOC) and demand that THEY fix the problem with THEIR department. But this fails to recognize the difficulty of the task that the DOC is charged with and completely ignores society 's role in both the problem and its solution. The DOC has to operate jails and prisons in a safe and secure manner while maintaining compliance with a multitude of federal and state regulations and laws regarding things like: prisoner health and welfare; environmental standards; fire codes; OSHA safety standards; staffing levels and training; and much more. Maintaining safety and security is in itself a full time job once you take into consideration that: (1) there exists a subculture within the prison environment that promotes both a code of silence and the use of violence; and (2) some prisoners will exploit any security breach to attempt an escape or obtain prohibited contraband. How do you maintain safety when the majority of the people making up the prison population are actively promoting violence, and where the rest must remain silent for fear of reprisal? How do you maintain security when one oversight or mistake is all it takes for an escape or breach to occur? Does this mean the DOC is operating at some ideal level and achieving optimal results? No it does not. It simply means that they have a very difficult task and that most of the obvious Moore 4 suggestions for improving the rate of rehabilitation, have usually been tried in the past and have been abandoned due to some conflict with safety or security. Faced with such circumstances, is it even possible for the DOC to implement programs and measures that will increase the rate rehabilitation? It appears that maintaining safety and security will remain, invariably, at odds with such programs and measures. Perhaps the needs intrinsic to incarceration and the environment needed to facilitate successful and consistent rehabilitation are of such an opposite character that they cannot co-exist. 3. Society 's Role Society 's role in the low rate of rehabilitation is one that is easier to identify and find solutions for. This is mainly because society does not have to concern itself with safety and security in the way the DOC must. Today, in society, offenders are marred with a stigma that inhibits successful rehabilitation. They are unable to find adequate employment and housing because no one wants to hire them as an employee or rent to them as a tenant. This ostracism is one of the main things that keep offenders on the fringes of society where they cannot successfully reintegrate and where they will likely commit new crimes. Ostracism means: exclusion by general consent from common privileges or social acceptance. Rehabilitation means: to restore to good repute, or, to restore or bring to a condition of health and useful and constructive activity. How can anyone expect an offender to rehabilitate and thus rejoin society as a non-criminal member, if society generally consents to exclude him or her? Moore 5 3.1 Employment and Housing In today 's job market it is no longer only high-paying professional jobs that require a prospective employee to pass a background check. Now a person cannot ring up your groceries, mop the floors in a public building, or even work in some restaurants if they have a felony conviction on their record. The annual losses caused by exclusion of ex-offenders from the job market impose a substantial cost on the U.S. economy, in the form of lost output and goods, and in terms of gross domestic product, this is estimated to cost between $57 and $65 billion annually. (Schmitt and Warner). The federal government has taken some measures to try to help offenders find their way back into the workplace. The U.S. Congress enacted the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which provides tax credits to employers whom hire individuals from certain disadvantaged groups, including ex-felons. However, these tax credits are often times unknown, and sadly, even when known, rarely outweigh the stigma of a felony conviction. Maybe local, state and federal governments, as a policy, could employ offenders in public service positions. This would provide offenders the employment needed for successful rehabilitation and the private sector could then cull employees, who 've proven to be reliable, from this group. In many places affordable housing is hard to find, and where it is available, there is a competitive market. Within this competitive market most landlords would outright refuse to rent to an offender based solely on the availability of a tenant without a felony record. Employment and housing are not the only areas that offenders find themselves excluded, but they are probably the most important in relation to successful rehabilitation. All people need employment with which they can support themselves and their dependents and adequate housing. Moore 6 These are basic necessities of life which all human beings need and are being denied to American citizens whom have been punished for their crimes and now are attempting to reintegrate back into the community. This form of ostracism serves no legitimate penal interest and only increases the difficulty an offender faces when attempting to rejoin the community as a non-criminal member. In fact, this extra-judicial vigilante style of punishment tears at the very same social fabric tom by the initial criminal act. The consequences of this ostracizing are borne by both offenders and society. When the offender remains a criminal and re-offends, society suffers as a victim and the offender suffers a return to the correctional system. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle in which society bears a twofold financial loss from the high cost of incarceration and the loss of productivity. Tax dollars are spent to incarcerate the individual whom is now no longer contributing to the state and federal tax revenues. These costs are further amplified by the fact that many offenders leave behind dependents that are then forced to rely on other tax-funded services such as welfare and public assistance. The actual and derivative cost to society, to incarcerate one of its members, is astronomical in comparison to what benefit, if any, is received from incarceration. As stated above, the annual cost of incarceration exceeds $66.5 billion. This is just another example of how the 'out of sight out of mind' mentality has failed us. Society pretending it can avoid having to deal with offenders if they don 't live in the same buildings or work in the same jobs as them, is like the ostrich that buries its head in the sand pretending the danger is gone if it no longer can see it. In 2014 the Alaska Legislature created the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. The commission was created as part of a much larger crime bill, Senate Bill 64, which enjoyed strong bipartisan and public support, due primarily to the enormous financial burden caused by Moore 7 overcrowding in Alaska 's jails and prisons and the high rate of recidivism. The purpose of the commission is to study the effects of sentencing laws and criminal justice practices in Alaska and evaluate whether those laws and practices serve the goals of penal administration. The commission must also prepare periodic reports to the legislature providing information relevant to the revision of old laws and the drafting of new ones. While the idea and purpose of the commi ssion is both necessary and good, in practice we have yet to see if the commission will actually effectuate needed changes, or if it will be just another bureaucratic body with a high price tag that promises results but delivers precious little. The commission 's suggestions included in the legislation for 2015 do very little to actually ease overcrowding or improve penal administration. To date, the commission has not solicited input from offenders and their families about the practical effects of the criminal justice system. Nor have they spoken en masse to correctional staff, whose input would be highly valuable. Within the criminal justice system, these people are the human resource involved in the day to day application of penal laws. There are some things a person cannot learn vicariously, things that without empirical experience, a quality necessary for a complete understanding of the given subject will be missing. To understand the criminal justice system and its effects on offenders and society is one of those things. This is why citizens and lawmakers should seek input, regarding penal administration, from offenders, their families, and correctional staff. 4. Substance Abuse Also important for consideration, is the large number of criminal cases that are drug and/or alcohol related. In some states a majority of criminal cases are alcohol and drug related. In Alaska, the level of alcohol abuse has reached epidemic proportions, which, in turn, has resulted Moore 8 in more crime. Also in Alaska, illicit drug use is at almost 12% while the national average is about 8%. (NSDUH). Many states and jurisdictions that have been plagued with drug and alcohol abuse have created what is called "therapeutic courts" or "treatment courts". There are approximately 2300 of these courts nationwide. (Shedlock) They are an alternative to traditional criminal courts and focus almost exclusively on rehabilitation, and have achieved moderate to high levels of success at addressing drug and alcohol abuse and it 's related crime. They utilize a combination of: drug and alcohol treatment; drug testing; mandatory court appearances; supervision similar to probationers or parolees; and other social services, such as, housing assistance, educational and vocational training, medical and psychiatric care and food assistance. Participation in the therapeutic courts lies within the discretion of the judge and must be agreed to by the prosecutor. In most instances the defendant will plead guilty to a single count and, upon completion of a collectively developed treatment plan; no conviction is entered in his or her record. In Alaska the recidivism rate for offenders who graduate from the state therapeutic courts is 13%, compared to 32% for comparison offenders. (Sentencing Project). Recently the U.S. District Court in Alaska created a 'Re-Entry Court ' to focus on reducing recidivism. (Shedlock) The nation of Portugal provides an interesting example of how a national government can successfully address a massive drug problem using an unorthodox approach. In the mid-1990 's, at the height of a national drug abuse epidemic, there were approximately 100,000 people severely addicted to drugs in Portugal. (Hollersen). This was at a time when the nation 's total population was just under 10 million, which means that about one in ten Portuguese citizens were severe addicts. This figure is made even more stunning if you factor in the existence of Moore 9 other drug abusers, not classified 'severely addicted. ' In 1999, Portugal also had the highest rates of HIV among drug injection users within the European Union. (Cato) To combat this epidemic, Portugal took a widely unpopular and radical step, when in 2001 it decriminalized drug use and possession of small amounts. The Portuguese government adopted the position that drug addicts are sick, not criminals. Drugs are still illegal but using them is nothing more than a misdemeanor, much the same as a parking ticket. The police do not seize drugs unless their amount exceeds nationally set limits of approximately a 10 day supply. Drug users are offered treatment instead of incarceration and the approach of the penal system is humanistic and pragmatic. It is now widely accepted that the results of Portugal 's experimental drug policy have been positive. Even most critics agree that the problems have not gotten worse as a result of decriminalization. For almost every category of drug, and for drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates in the pre-decriminalization era of the 1990 's were higher than the postdecriminalization rates and the number of drug trafficking convictions has also declined steadily since 2001. (Cato). Also, the number of newly reported cases of HIV and AIDS among drug addicts has declined substantially every year since 2001. (Cato). The number of treatment facilities and participants has increased. (Cato). In 2006 the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of the Portuguese Health Ministry, reported that "Available indicators continue to suggest effective responses a treatment level ... and [at] the harm reduction level." By addressing its drug problem as a social and health issue rather than a criminal one, Portugal has saved millions of dollars. This 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure ' approach, has led to less money spent on police, courts and prisons and more people rejoining Moore 10 society as healthy constructive members. In addition to imposing less of a financial burden on society, these former addicts have begun to again contribute to productivity and tax revenue. While Portugal 's radical decriminalization may not work here in America, there is still valuable insights to be gleaned from their unorthodox approach to an extraordinary social problem. One such insight is that when a society is faced with a large scale problem, like crime and recidivism, and all the efforts thus far have failed to sufficiently rectify the problem, maybe a new approach is needed. 5. Conclusions We can make the correctional system more effective through reform and policy changes. As a society, we must change either why we incarcerate people or how we incarcerate them. If we do not, we risk continuing to lose billions of dollars while inflicting severe damage to the structural integrity of our society. Maybe we should only incarcerate persons that are violent and dangerous? Maybe we need legislative reforms? Maybe the criminal justice system should focus primarily on rehabilitation? Maybe society, instead of the DOC, should be responsible for rehabilitation? Absent radical steps, the solution will likely be a combination of changes to both the correctional system and the way society deals with offenders. Here are some suggestions for changes and possible solutions to these issues. ONE - we must focus the maximum amount of time, energy and resources available to preventing people, especially children, from becoming criminals in the first place. Criminal behaviors are learned, so we must teach something different. Nothing could be more effective at lowering the rates of crime and violence and addressing criminal justice problems than raising children in a crime free lifestyle. Moore 11 TWO - we must advocate for meaningful legislative reform by contacting state and federal representatives to demand change and exercising our power as voters to get these demands met. As a society, we need to push our legislatures to repeal laws that are designed to maximize incarceration, things like mandatory minimum sentences and habitual offender statutes. While these laws make for good campaign slogans about protecting the public and being tough on crime, they have, actually, largely failed. These types of laws have driven an 800% increase in the American prison population in the last 30 years (Booker). Begin a discussion about your state amending its constitution to include right to rehabilitation. THREE - we must develop or expand on existing alternatives to incarceration. Things like: the therapeutic courts; diversion programs; mental health treatment; drug and alcohol treatment; educational and vocational training. Many of these types of programs have been shown to work and if they don 't make the problems worse and are cheaper, why not try them? We can look to other countries, like Portugal, to see what methods they 've tried and what has and hasn 't worked. The bottom line is that mass incarceration has failed to effectively fight crime or to protect the public, so we have to try something different. FOUR - the correctional system should shift its focus from doing the minimum required by law, to doing the maximum amount possible. A prime example of why this is needed is provided by how the correctional system deals with juvenile offenders whom have been charged as adults. These minors are housed in segregation units which are the most restrictive setting within the correctional system. Prisoners in segregation are confined to their cells for 23 hours per day and are let out only for a one hour recreation period. Segregation units are designed to comply with constitutional minimum standards to avoid violating prisoner 's rights. Thus the DOC is not violating the rights of these juveniles, but it is doing only the minimum required by Moore 12 law. This is a poor practice because juvenile offenders are a critical group, due to their higher potential for rehabilitation, and because the psychological and emotional effects of segregation are more harmful to juveniles. The correctional system could employ a sliding scale approach to rehabilitation in which the prisoners with the most need and potential for rehabilitation would receive higher priority for programs and assistance. Probationers and parolees being supervised by the DOC should be given top priority for rehabilitation. Re-incarceration should be a last resort and reserved for only the most serious violations and new criminal conduct. Doing the maximum possible for rehabilitation can only lead to better results. FIVE - offenders must develop personal accountability and choose to rehabilitate. This means they must take advantage of the many programs and resources that are already available within the existing correctional system, instead of blaming a flawed system for their failures. They must take an active role in the solution and quit being a part of the problem. Without the conscious choice and honest effort to change by the offenders themselves, even the best system for rehabilitation would fail. This is the toughest hurdle faced by the DOC, because how can you teach an offender to change? But it also has the biggest payoff, evidenced by how offenders whom have been reached with the message that personal accountability leads to freedom, are able to rehabilitate within the existing, less than perfect, system. SIX - society must stop ostracizing offenders, and instead, treat them with the dignity, respect and compassion owed to all citizens. It is a sad reality that in a nation which is more than 70% Christian (Newport), so many people are reluctant to forgive these offenders for their past deeds and welcome them to do better. Until society stops ostracizing offenders it will continue to pay the massive price of incarceration and to suffer the high rates of crime and violence that come with high rates of recidivism. Citizens must have the courage within their community to Moore 13 extend a hand to offenders by offering to hire them, renting them an apartment or providing them a reference. While I may suffer from a bias because I am a prisoner, my observations and suggested reforms remain valid, because I don 't stand to benefit from any possible reforms, as it is unlikely that I will even live long enough to reach my release date. As a society we must act now and can 't afford to wait, because incarceration isn 't just my problem, but yours too. Moore 14 Works Cited Alaska Constitution Article 1 Section 11 Booker, Sen. Cory. "What 's better for America 's status?" CNN.com. 24 April 2015. Cato Institute. "Drug Decriminalization In Portugal, Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies" � 2009. Web. wm 'w. cato. ore. May 2015 Hollersen, Wiebke. " 'This is working ': Portugal, 12 years after Decriminalizing Drugs." Spiegal Online. 27 March 2013. Web. 18 May 2015. Horwitz, Sari. "Federal Prison Population Drops for the First Time in 3 Decades." Washinton Post Online. 23 Sept. 2014. Web. www.washinmntonpost.com. Newport, Frank. "In U.S., 77% Identify as Christian." Dec. 24 2012. Web. www.gallup.com. 6 June 2015. NSDUH- National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration - "State Estimates of Substance Use from 2007-2008." Web. http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k8state/Cover.pdf. 10 June 2015. Schmitt, John and Warner, Kris. Center For Economic and Policy Research. Ex Offenders and the Labor Market. November 2010. Web. www.cepr.net. 1 June 2015. Sentencing Project, The. "State Recidivism Rates." June 2010. www.sentencingproiect.org. Moore 15 Shedlock, Jerzy. "Federal re-entry court aims to reduce recidivism." Alaska Dispatch News 8 June 2015. Print. State vs. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). LexisNexis. Web. 8 June 2015.