Racial disparities, overcrowding, and rehabilitation in U.S. prisons

U.S. PRISON SYSTEM

US Prison System

The United States prison system has become the subject of much debate in modern society and the media. This has happened for a litany of reasons such as concerns about racial disparities in sentencing, overcrowding, recidivism rates, rehabilitation performance and the policy-making process in general. There are also questions and concerns about the number of drug users/addicts in prison, the amount of mentally ill people in prison and how prisons now seem to resemble the asylums and institutions of the past in that they are more about warehousing undesirables rather than actually administering justice a lot of the time (Houser & Belenko, 2015). People complain about some sentences being too light while others assert that some sentences are entirely too harsh given the crime involved. Others are at odds over habitual offenders who keep getting into trouble and whether escalating sentences over time, regardless of the severity of the crime, is a good answer for crimes and criminals that just do not seem to stop (Pinto, 2015).

There is no shortage of statistics and other details that people point to when they decry and critique how the United States handles its criminals and prisoners. Indeed, many assail the United States as being the civilized and industrialized country with the most criminals per capita while others might say that this only because there are a lot of criminals and all of them could and should be incarcerated for the actions they commit. Further, the United States has roughly three hundred million guns and a lot of the crime that get people sent to prison involves those guns, whether possessed or bought legally or illegally (Cook, Harris, Ludwig & Pollack, 2015). Even with all of that, finding solutions and protracted improvements to this system has been found to be elusive. While is a lot of concern about the ongoing lives of criminals once they get out, there are many in society that are unsympathetic. Even so, reintegrating prior criminals back into society is important because an ex-convict that has a record is much less likely to find gainful employment and this increases the odds that they will return to a life of crime and/or will otherwise be non-productive during their life (Miller & Spillane, 2012). The fact remains, however, that many are not caring about that because prior history is indeed a great predictor of future behavior and hiring people known to be criminals in the past can lead to lawsuits and other uncomfortable situations for employers if/when the person gets into more trouble. This report shall do a strong literature review of all of the above situations and problems and some solutions shall be offered for the same during a subsequent critical analysis section of this report. While both sides have compelling arguments, there is a good and single path forward and it requires ex-convicts, drug addicts or mentally ill people to actively participate in their redemption and/or rehabilitation or they will seal their proverbial fate when it comes to how productive and fruitful their lives will be. While people who make mistakes should get second chances if they are serious about doing the right thing, people that repeatedly break the law and game the system should be hit with punitive and thorough measures to ensure that they know that this is not a game and that their anti-social, insidious and hurtful behavior will not be tolerated or accepted on any level (Goodman, 2012).

The overall problem that will be addressed in this report is how to address and handle the fact that the amount of crime and incarceration in this country is entirely too high given the ostensible modernity and advancement of our society (Redburn, Western & Travis, 2014). At the same time, deviancy and bad behavior in general is rather rampant in the United States and this cannot be ignored. While it is true that poverty and other social strife leads to bad decisions being made, the individual making the choices cannot be given a simple slap on the wrist and told it is not their fault because society is keeping them down. It can indeed be very stressful to have more bills than money in a month but taking a gun, robbing a store, potentially or actually hurting an innocent person in the process cannot be tolerated or accepted ... not to mention left unpunished (Hlavka, Wheelock & Cossyleon, 2015).

Literature Review

One major issues when it comes to prisons is that many prisons are extremely overcrowded. Like most structures and dwellings, prisons are rated on the amount of people that they could or should be housing at any given time. For example, prison A might be rated to hold 2,000 prisoners at any given time. Often times, however, there are prisons that are holding and detaining many more prisoners than they are rated or even allowed to hold and this is creating a number of problems. The most sterling and epic example of this is almost certainly California. It has gotten to the point where judges are mandating that prisoners be released so as to get the inmate level to a morally and/or legally acceptable level. Indeed, packing in prisoners too tightly makes a bad situation worse a lot of the time. Beyond that, there are many who assert that these overcrowded prisons have effects on recidivism and substance abuse rates of the prisoners that are being housed there. Ruderman, Wilson and Reid (2015) looked at precisely this subject in a recent treatise about prisons and California was indeed one of their main focuses in terms of location. In particular, they looked at how overcrowding aggravates the drug abuse of inmates due to the overcrowding causing less efficacy in the providing and enforcement of rehabilitation while inside (Ruderman, Wilson & Reid, 2015).

The Ruderman study used an observation period of two full years, spanning from January 2003 to December 2004. Generally, prisoners subjected to over-crowding in prisons were compared to those that were paroled or were otherwise in much less restricted and cramped situations. Their assertion is that prison overcrowding has a strong correlation with recidivism and other bad outcomes as compared to people that are not crammed into prisons with such vigor. While the nature of the crime is important when it comes to whether recidivism is enhanced as a result of overcrowding, it was found that drug offenses in particular were much more apt to repeat when overcrowding was present. Other adverse prison experiences such as assaults and so forth can also be a factor (Ruderman, Wilson & Reid, 2015).

When it comes to problems that plague prisons and the wider criminal justice system, recidivism is right up there near or at the top. Indeed, a lot of prisoners end up offending again after they get out of prison and there have been many that have sought ways to prevent this vicious cycle from starting or otherwise propagating. One theory and framework that is commonly cited and used is known as inoculation theory. This is a widely recognized theory in the field of communication. It is commonly used a means of preventing or at least reducing recidivism. This is seen as a major and important movement due to the things and events that can happen when recidivism occurs such as homicides, sex offenses, larceny, assaults and batteries. There is also the factor that the government almost always uses some sort of confinement method to deal with criminals and thus isolating them from society (Matusitz & Breen, 2013).

However, confinement and isolation alone is not enough as there needs to be behavioral modification, cognitive restructuring and persuasive resistance that should all be explored and used as needed to get a convict back on the right track. The paradigms of crime, incarceration and rehabilitation move and bend in concert and they must be shaped in the right ways so as to get the desired and full results so as to lower relapses into criminal life. Each piece must be wielded in the right way and there are a lot of examples where it is not. For example, many prison situations are less than conducive to reducing recidivism. As explained in part in the last source, certain prison situations can lead to recidivism being higher, at least with drug offenses. However, there are other situations that are less than helpful including the housing of non-violent offenders with violent offenders, not keeping members of rival gangs separated and so forth. Indeed, any wise prison warden or other leadership will not intermix the wrong kinds of criminals and convicts because it tends to create bigger issues and many of those issues involve assaults or even deaths. Whether it be mental illness, gang turf wars or the severity of the crime, just throwing everyone into the same population and hoping for the best of the antithesis of what should be done if inoculation theory or anything like it is the way forward that is used (Matusitz & Breen, 2013).

Policy-making is most definitely another part of the prison puzzle. One iteration and example of that would be the Medicaid policies that are applied when it comes to state prisons within the broader United States prison system. This precise subject was explored by Rosen et al. in a 2014 journal article. Indeed, health care is a major concern when speaking of prison populations and Medicaid in particular is a common source of health care coverage for prisoners that are incarcerated. Rosen and his cohorts did a survey of the state prison system (SPS) policies affecting overall Medicaid enrollment for prisoners that were doing time. Overall, all but eight of the state prison systems in the United States participated in the survey. In general, nine of the state prison systems were suspended in terms of Medicaid benefits. This represents just over a fifth of the state prison systems in question. Another twenty-eight of the prisons had Medicaid in terminated status. This was about two thirds of the prison sample. Even with those two groups, about two thirds of the prisons screened prisoners for Medicaid eligibility. Many states actively advocated, at least at the time. For Medicaid enrollment upon release from prison but several did not do so. Given all of this, many have advocated an expansion of Medicaid so as to reach groups of people that are not served or under-served and prisoners would certainly meet this definition in more than one way. This is especially important because a lot of prisoners spend a good amount of years in jail. For example, time in a single prison averages about five years and ranged from two to ten years. Time in the current prison system was usually about thirteen years and ranged from six to nineteen years. Time in any prison system was about fourteen years on average and ranged from nine to twenty years (Rosen, Dumont, Cislo, Brockmann, Traver & Rich, 2014).

As partially noted earlier in this report, it can be extremely difficult for felons to reintegrate into society. The main, but certainly not the only, reason for this is that felons often have a hard time finding a job. When many employers see felon status when it comes to an employee, that alone often precludes that applicant from further consideration. It has gotten to the point where equal employment agencies and groups like the EEOC have weighed in and said that it is very much like other forms of discrimination and thus should be regulated or perhaps even banned. However, that is about has hard a pill to swallow as the assertion that alcoholism is a disease (and thus worthy of ADA protections) like multiple sclerosis is a disease. The commonality between alcoholism and felony status is that some to most of the situation is based on voluntary behavior. Indeed, alcoholics get hooked because they abuse alcohol. However, it gets to the point where they are hopelessly hooked on alcohol and they are trying to find a way out of their addiction. The addiction and its aftermath often has a dire effect on their employment status and other facets of day-to-day life. Felon status is not entirely different. If someone commits a felony, is charged, convicted and serves time, they are in a bad situation from a life standpoint even if they get their head together while in prison. Even if they are on the straight and narrow after getting out of prison, their felony record is very much going to affect their ability to get and/or keep a job. As noted before, pity about these sorts of situations is less than forthcoming from a lot of people as they deem felons and addicts to be reaping what they sow. However, this cannot be the best and final answer from a societal standpoint because these people still have to live and survive and they really cannot do so if society treats them like lepers and second-class citizens. Even if there is not a real and firm comparison between discrimination based on race or gender as compared to discrimination based on drug use or felon status, there are people in the latter two groups that are well-intentioned and that are ready to get their life straight but they are not really getting an honest chance to do so. While prevention would be much better as an overall strategy, something must be done with the people that have gone astray but want to redeem themselves (Saxonhouse, 2004).

Another dimensions to the United States prison system that should be addressed are repeat offenders and how they tend to be handled. Indeed, there are many people that will have one or two scrapes with the law and they will then keep their nose clean thereafter. However, the opposite end of that spectrum are the people that offend over and over. Many jurisdictions and their constituents have gotten fed up with these sorts of criminals and it has led to the introduction of habitual offender laws. The idea behind such laws is that people that offend and offend again need to receive advanced sentencing so as to keep them off the streets longer and drive home the point, hopefully, that their continued flouting of the law will not be tolerated. One example of this in action was a man from Baton Rouge, Louisiana that had been arrested at least eighteen times for a number of offenses, four of which were felonies. The jurisdiction in question had had enough and sentenced him to sixty years in jail. This was levied in spite of the fact that other pending charges including racketeering, conspiracy and illegal possession of a firearm charges were all dropped. If the man serves the entire sentence, he will surely die in prison has he was forty-two years old at the time of the sentence (Associated Press, 2015). Even if the idea of habitual offending sentencing sounds good in theory (and it does to many people), there are concerns that race and ethnicity are playing entirely too high a role when it comes to who gets slapped with such harsh sentencing and who does not. One study on the subject, as authored by Crow and Johnson, found that Florida was disproportionately levying habitual offender sentences against ethnic and racial minorities as compared to white people, just as one example (Crow & Johnson, 2008).

One trend that is concerning to many people is the fact that many prisons are becoming privatized in nature. Rather than public agencies having complete, command, control and involvement in all prison operations, many prisons are actually private operated with the permission and oversight of the state, not unlike when a road or bridge is requested by a city but is actually built by a private contractor. These public/private partnerships seem to be paying dividends in some ways such as saving money but the people behind these private prisons have sometimes met a sharp amount of scrutiny from the public in general and advocacy groups in particular. However, these public/private partnerships are starting to evolve a little bit. One example is the emergence of social impact bonds that exist between the public agencies and the private companies (Baliga, 2013).

The gist is that there is an agreed upon price for these arrangements but at least some of the payments are contingent on the meeting of certain outcomes and goals. These goals and desired outcomes are based on social and cultural trends such as high homelessness and overall recidivism rates. In other words, the privately-run prisons have a high incentive to actually be careful about how they house and deal with prisoners rather than just packing them high and tight and resorting to simply warehousing them. There has indeed been a modicum of success when it comes to SIB's around the country and this has spurred a lot of new pilot programs in areas where the SIB's are not already in place. An SIB arrangement and/or privatization in general may not be the best answer in a lot of cases but it would seem to work really well in many other situations so long as everyone involved is held accountable and there are specific yet reasonable strings attached to reaping the most of the money that can be made from the arrangement (Baliga, 2013).

Finally, we come to a rather outlying theory but one that should actually be considered. This would be the abolition and revamp of the United States prison system as we currently know it. Allegra McCleod and others have asserted that the current prison system is entirely too bastardized and problem-ridden to really accomplish what is intended. One reason is that non-violent offenders often devolve and degenerate when they are in prison as opposed to really learning anything or otherwise improving once they get outside. Beyond that, they often get housed with people that are institutionalized and/or are otherwise violent and this only leads to bad things for everyone involved. There is the assertion that non-violent criminals should be relegated to sentences and conditions that are more conducive to their rehabilitation such as house arrest, work release and so forth. There is also the assertion that people should get a better and more expanded chance to have their criminal offenses expunged if they stay on the straight and narrow for a pre-defined amount of time. For example, if someone commits a robbery offense but keeps their nose clean for two full years after their release, they can have their conviction removed. Further, they can be given assistance in terms of job placement and so forth in the meantime so that they remain productive, employed and so forth. Their activity can be tracked using GPS ankle bracelets and those that do refuse to abide by the rules can face further sanctions. In this case, only those that are stubborn about not breaking the law are given prison time and other more protracted sanctions and the people that learn their lesson are kept out of prison and are allowed to remain integrated with society. Of course, those people need to learn their lessons, change their habits, change their friends, etc. It is just like the idea of a prior heroin addict needing to stay away from situations where drug use is present (McLeod, 2015).

Conclusion

In the end, the prison system situation in the United States is very vexing and dichotomous. It is true that criminals made their own bed and they should, at least for a time, have to sleep in it. At the same time, there are a lot of people with criminal records in this country and even those that wish to get on the right track are often foiled in doing so. If one cannot get/keep a job and/or cannot get out of poverty, the possibility of recidivism gets higher and a social problem is made worse than it already is. At the same time, people have to have it drilled into them that making certain lifestyle choices will only lead to problems down the road. There are just a few things to avoid that can greatly help people stay out of poverty and/or depravity. These include not having kids out of wedlock, not having kids before turning 21 so that they can get their career/college established, finishing high school, staying out of gangs, not engaging in criminal behavior at all and so forth. The people that avoid these travails and trappings of daily life often do better (if not much better) than those that do not. It has to be instilled that success and comfort are not unattainable but that they will never be reached if the wrong decisions are made and the right decisions are not made. Actions and inactions have consequences and people cannot be allowed to bypass or disregard that. Not keeping a steady job means rent will not be paid. Stealing from others will eventually lead to negative contact with the police and possible jail time. Deviance is something that some people wear as a badge of honor but such counter-culture bilge needs to be called what it is ... destructive. The government is certainly not honorable at all times and there are indeed some problems out there like racism, poverty and corruption. However, two wrongs don't make a right and that has always been true.