If you're confused about the title, go here. It will explain the title and set the stage for the following post.
If I had to explain our criminal justice system in a phrase, it would be "punishment by isolation." Isolation from family, friends, work... life (a bit of a generalization, but pretty accurate for the purposes of this post).
I don't want to reiterate everything in my previous post, but the crux of my criticism is that isolation recreates the factors that created the criminal to begin with. In contrast, the system should seek out those factors and address them. More importantly, rather than isolation, we should be concerned with reintegration.
Now, there are some reintegration plans out there, and I love that they exist. For instance, the Hennepin County Workhouse, while not the place you want to be, does offer opportunities to earn money, learn to cook, take the GED, and receive treatment for drug or mental health problems. Contrast this with most prisons where a person is incarcerated, released after his or her sentence is complete, and then expected to just go back to life as normal. It's difficult to get a job if you're not a felon, let alone a person freshly out of the system.
Yet, I still find a bit of fault with even the most generous reintegration programs (like the one mentioned above). Our system does not assign punishment based on the person, but on the crime. So a person convicted of assault gets the same sentence (for the most part), regardless of the circumstances. This immediately limits our ability to reintegrate because the factors that created one assault won't be the same factors that create another. A person with an anger problem doesn't need the same help as a person with a drinking problem. That person doesn't need the same services as a twenty-something caught up in a gang. Different solutions for different circumstances.
The strength of this approach is that it is a pushback against the notion that punishment deters crime. I don't think it does. I'm not a law abiding citizen because I'm afraid of some abstract punishment written in a MN statute. Rather, I'm afraid of the fallout going that a conviction would cause. I'm in school, have friends, family, and a career ahead of me. I'm invested in my life and community as a whole. That is the real deterrent. If I didn't have those things, I would be far less concerned about the punishment itself.
While this sounds glib (a rather easy dismissal of the serious punishments out there), I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen clients act this way. Some would tell us that they simply don't care if they go to prison. They can, "do the time," as they say. What causes a person to act this way? Well, I assure you that not all of our clients acted that way, and it was clear when a person had a job and family on their mind in our discussions about their case.
This proposition is without a factual basis. However, it is a logical one. There is a connection between our investment in society and our propensity to commit a crime. Fear of punishment is a factor, but not as much as we give it credit for. It loses its sting without all the other losses that go with it. So when a person has nothing to lose outside of the crime's punishment, it's easy for that person to not only offend a first time, but a second and third.
I understand that most people probably don't think criminals deserve this kind of treatment. However, criminals are people. They're people who made a bad decision and we should never forget that. We should never forget that a bad decision can be made in seconds and affect us for years. Moreover, we should never forget that we're all able to make bad decisions. I want people to stop and think before they make those decisions. Or better yet, have the means and lifestyle that would prevent them from being in the situation providing the means for a bad decision. Ultimately, our goal should be to reduce crime by making people more invested in society as opposed to severing people from society though punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment