Junk Justice

Jail’em, Jail’em, Jail’em

by

TOM MOLLOY

I have no background whatsoever in criminology or law enforcement, but I think the sentences meted out to nonviolent offenders in the United States are absurd. From what I read, the United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other nation. It is our apathy that permits our judicial system to continue this indefensibly extravagant practice. It’s time to rise up and urge our legislators to adopt a rational paradigm for punishment of nonviolent offenders. <>

Let’s look at the concept of incarceration. What is the rationale for incarcerating people? Incarceration can serve four purposes: to punish, to rehabilitate, to deter and to protect society
.
<>PUNISHMENT. There is no doubt that restricting people’s freedom of movement and freedom of association by putting them in prison is a harsh form of punishment. What is doubtful is whether locking up nonviolent offenders is a cost-effective form of punishment. Reportedly, it costs between $15K and $30K per year to keep an individual in prison. There are many ways to punish nonviolent offenders without putting them in jail. Take the recent cases of the corporate executives whose greed caused so much pain to so many people. In no way do I wish to belittle the enormity of their crime, nonviolent though it may be. Nevertheless, it doesn’t follow that incarceration is necessary or desirable. Greed and hubris led them to commit their crimes. Ergo, an appropriate punishment might consist of impoverishment and humiliation. I suggest the measures below would provide suitable punishment at very little cost to the taxpayers.

Strip the offenders of financial assets,

Compel them to work at menial jobs for minimum wage (e.g., dishwasher, restroom attendant),

Allow them no other income,

Force them to live in a government-run open bay dormitory,

Provide a kitchen where they must prepare their own meals,

Charge a monthly fee to defray the cost of lodging and the small staff that monitors their behavior,

Enforce a strict curfew,

Assign each lodger chores for the upkeep of their lodging facilities,

Limit their leisure time and recreational opportunities, and

Incarcerate only those who don’t conform to the rules.

ALTERNATIVELY, a very cheap, but fearful punishment would be the following:

Impose an appropriate fine if one is warranted.

Sentence nonviolent offenders to report at designated times to an auditorium where they will sit for a specified time on specified days without eating, drinking, smoking, talking, sleeping etc.

At the discretion of the court, permit offenders to read approved materials after they have served one third of their sentences.

Charge offenders a fee to defray the cost of their punishment.

One instance in which prison as a punishment was ludicrous was the Martha Stewart case. What point was there in sending her to prison? After imposing a suitable fine, a judge could have sentenced her to report to the auditorium seven nights a week from 1800 to 2200 for six months and six nights a week for an additional six months. I believe this form of relatively inexpensive punishment would be highly effective. The very thought of having to spend several hours an evening in state of irksome boredom makes me shudder. Only offenders who didn’t comply with these rules would be sentenced to terms in prison.

REHABILITATION

The generally high recidivism rate indicates that rehabilitation is not a very good argument for incarceration. Apparently, the prison experience brutalizes some nonviolent young offenders who, had they not been in prison, would probably never have another encounter with the law. They emerge from prison bitter, hardened criminals. If we emptied our prisons of nonviolent offenders, we might apply part of the monetary savings to establishing rehabilitation programs for violent offenders.

DETERRENCE

Deterrence value of prisons depends on the degree of reluctance of individuals to repeat the incarceration experience. One of the factors that diminishes the deterrence value of prison is the generally low IQ of habitual offenders. They simply don’t anticipate the consequences of their actions. They live in a world of incomprehension and ambiguity. The much reviled, but nonetheless seminal book, The Bell Curve* contains a marvelous explication of the nexus between IQ and criminality. The more intelligent the inmates, the less likely they are to be imprisoned again. Either prison has rehabilitated or deterred them or they have simply become more masterful practitioners of crime.

PROTECTION OF SOCIETY.

Incarceration, expensive though it may be, effectively protects society from rapists, armed robbers, muggers and murderers. They can’t hurt us while they are locked up. Society may not wish to take a chance on alternative forms of punishment for these predators. We don’t feel comfortable unless they are removed from society. When we consider the corporate financial criminals and Martha Stewart, I don’t think any of us would have felt threatened if they had been sentenced to an alternative form of punishment.

The prison imbroglio now has a new aspect: prison entrepreneurs. Perversely, corporations rather than the state have taken over the management of some of our prisons. Prisons have become a business and prison inmates are a commodity. All things being equal, the greater the number of inmate-hours, the greater the corporate profit. If I were the CEO of a prison management corporation (PMC), I would be lobbying legislatures to pass laws that would send more people to prison and lengthen their sentences. Longer sentences and criminalization of behavior lead to increased profits. If farting in public were to be criminalized and achieve the status of a felony, we could lock up offenders for years. Prison management corporation stockholders would reap the benefits of felonious farting. Again if I were CEO of a PMC, I’d be lobbying to make, parking violations and spitting on the sidewalk felonies. As felonies, these two crimes could be profit leaders. As CEO of a PMC, I would also lobby for reduced sentences for violent offenders. Violent offenders are relatively less profitable and a royal pain in the ass. They require a great deal of expensive supervision because they are uncooperative, unrepentant, irrational, surly, and downright dangerous to warehouse. Prison guards who supervise the violent offenders are under constant stress. They live in fear of becoming victims of sudden, unprovoked act of violence. The stress results in a high rate of expensive turnover among the guards. In my position as CEO of a PMC, I would lobby to incarcerate jaywalkers and litterers for extended periods. They require much less supervision. They are profit leaders.

As CEO, my goal is to make a profit for my shareholders. The larger the prison population, the greater my profit. A little payola and a few favors to the right legislators can work wonders. With any luck we can create new felonies. For example, we might sentence people who fail to wash their hands after going to the bathroom to 10 years in prison for reckless endangerment of public health.

<>Ain’t free enterprise great?

*Most of the press attacked the Bell Curve as racist. I read it twice and I did not find any racist content. The press had a field day destroying straw men. I found the Bell Curve to be very upsetting and depressing because it pointed out that we have social problems that do not lend themselves to simple solutions proposed by liberal or conservative politicians.

<>