Americans have developed an affinity for easy answers to complex problems. In relation to the steady rise in crime rates during the last 20 years, the call is for stricter punishments and longer sentences. Rehabilitation has been discarded as a viable role for the criminal justice system. The status quo is to view prisons as machines created for the sole purpose of attaining maximum levels of suffering.
Not surprisingly, politicians have steered clear of advocating programs that address the issue of preparing prisoners for life after incarceration. Appearing to be “soft” on crime is political suicide.
The overriding perception among many Americans, most of whom have never set foot in a maximum security penitentiary, is that if we could only make prisons less desirable, crime rates would fall. It’s almost as if people think criminals are committing crimes expressly for the purpose of attaining admittance into their local penitentiary.
This, of course, makes perfect sense. Who wouldn’t want to spend 10 to 15 years in an American prison? Think of all the perks. To begin with, the living conditions are unbeatable. Show me one apartment complex that offers the convenience of a toilet two feet away from your bed. Having trouble finding a roommate? No problem. Wife and kids getting on your nerves? Commit the right crime and you’ll never have to spend time with them again.
Please excuse the preceding tangent. I was simply trying to stress the degree to which people have become oblivious to the condition of the criminal justice system. The fact is that the United States has more than 2 million incarcerated citizens. We have a higher percentage of our citizens behind bars than any other industrialized country in the world. But don’t be fooled by the political rhetoric surrounding the “tough on crime” movement. The criminal policy debate isn’t about preventing crime. It’s about creating the perception of safety and assigning blame.
If the powers that be really wanted to do something about crime in the United States, they would pay a little more attention to preventing crimes before they happen. Unfortunately, it is much easier to rally the American people behind the endless construction of human cages than it is to convince voters to fund programs aimed at keeping people out of prison. Money, after all, is the red herring of any debate over rehabilitation and preventative crime measures.
Despite evidence from countless studies that argue otherwise, people are unwilling to admit the fact that prevention is more effective than punishment - which is not to insinuate that criminals shouldn’t receive punishment. Any system of government that fails to stress the point that criminal acts will be met with reciprocal consequences will inevitably collapse. Still, by arguing that prevention and punishment are mutually exclusive terms, in relation to criminal justice, we fail to see the forest for the trees. How are we ever going to stem the tide of repeat offenders if we don’t offer prisoners a way to become productive members of society?
People don’t become repeat offenders because they can’t wait to return to the luxuries of prison life; they become repeat offenders because they don’t feel like they belong in mainstream society. The U.S. justice system does little to alleviate the preceding dilemma
Consider the following: A 19-year-old man, we’ll call him Jim, gets sent to prison for five years because he robbed a liquor store. Five years later, after he is released from prison, what are the odds he will follow a “straight and narrow” path? If I’m a gambling man, I would say the odds are pretty slim.
Let’s consider the important factors of Jim’s situation. First, he has a criminal record. Second, he hasn’t held a normal job in five years. Finally, he has no college and possibly no high school education. Who is going to give Jim a job? I wouldn’t. Would you?
How can we change Jim’s situation? As a society our options are limited. We can’t control the fact that Jim has a criminal record. He committed a crime. We can’t control the fact that his incarceration has separated him from the mainstream workforce for five years. His imprisonment was the result of his own illegal actions. We can, however, invest our tax money in a system that does more than warehouse prisoners for a few years before returning them to a life of crime.
Let me guess, you don’t like the idea of giving Jim a helping hand. You might be thinking of witty retorts like “Why should I care about helping a convicted criminal?” If that’s the way you feel, then maybe you should stick to your easy answers. Stick with punishment. Forget about prevention. Just make sure you lock your doors at night. Jim’s feeling a little disgruntled.
Greg Shaw is a State News undergraduate columnist. His column appears every other Tuesday. He can be reached at shawgreg@msu.edu.
