In their books Just Mercy, and The New Jim Crow, Bryan Stevenson and Michelle Alexander list and elaborate upon the injustices and disparity intertwined in America’s criminal justice system. Of the many issues they discuss, I will be focusing on rehabilitation services, their availability and the effect they have on prisoners. Rehabilitation services include therapy, counseling, job training, and even education for prisoners. In their articles, Sean Miller and Eileen Fisher claim that such services can play an essential role in the lives of convicts. Not only do they argue that they help prisoners re-enter society with control of their life as they prepare to deal with the thousands of legal restrictions that convicts face once out of jail. But they state they can keep convicts from slipping back into old ways that got them sentenced to prison in the first place, thus, keeping them out of the prison system after their first offense. Yet, despite the proven benefits, government on all levels and private prisons alike fail to offer the aforementioned services to convicts both in, and out of jail. What does this suggest about the government, and other leaders of our prison system? In his article, Stephanos Bibas talks about how prisons make a considerable amount of money for these organizations and entities. So is it possible that not offering rehabilitation services could be to keep the prisoners in the system for profit? While Eileen Fisher believes that it is all of american society who is to blame for “failing its prisoners” by not consistently offering them rehabilitation services. I would like to specifically call out our government and heads of the criminal justice system for their absence, and true intentions regarding this issue.
Whether it is their first time, or they are a repeat offender, living in american prisons is not beneficial to the prisoner. The people involved (prison guards, wardens, attorneys, and government officials etc.) are increasingly corrupt, the living conditions are often not up to standard, and the chance to begin reconstructing prisoners’ lives isn’t even offered in most cases. Eileen Fisher describes multiple different instances in which undesirable circumstances in jail negatively affect prisoners. On the issue of corruption, she states:
What we didn’t expect to find was pervasive corruption and systems too overwhelmed to offer desperately needed services that give ex-convicts a fighting chance to succeed in the outside world.
We learned of inmates who worked with prison guards to deal drugs. We heard about others who used drugs for the first time while incarcerated. Instead of getting rehab, those who came in addicted often got worse. We found inmates who used their time not to gain a trade but to learn how to more craftily commit crimes upon release.
In a place where prisoners are supposed to pay a debt to society and begin rebuilding their lives, unfavorable circumstances make it more difficult to complete such tasks. Instead, it becomes easier to slip back into old habits like the aforementioned drug abuse, and distribution. Such issues can be even more worrisome when there’s more individuals available to be influenced. With a 700% increase in prison populations over the last 40 years, many prisons are overcrowded, and understaffed (Miller). With that in mind, it could make sense why such corruption and poor living can take place. In the case that there is an inmate looking to begin their rehabilitation while still in jail, such services are rarely offered due to lack of prison funding (Fisher). If they are offered, it is usually through some sort of religious group, making it so only those who practice that religion can benefit from the services unless one is willing to convert (Miller). Combining the poor living conditions, the overflow of prisons, and the unequal availability of rehabilitation services, convicts are almost left with no choice but to wait until they are out of prison to get their lives right.
Outside of jail, the situation awaiting an ex-convict is far from ideal. Although the number is on the decline, there are roughly 48,000 legal restrictions on criminals nationwide (Fisher). These restrictions range everywhere from housing and residency, to the workforce and voting rights (Fisher). In fact, in the state of Michigan, incarceration for a year or more results in a 24% lower chance to get a job (Bibas). So even before even having the chance to do anything right or wrong upon serving their sentence, convicts are placed in a caste system in which they are second-class citizens. One would think that with all the odds stacked against them, convicts would have a plethora of rehabilitation organizations and companies offering to both help re-enter society, and recover from the traumas of prison. But sadly, in most states, this is not the case. It becomes even more unfortunate when realizing that in the instances where these services were actually available to convicts as resources (vocational skills, education opportunities, family counseling, and therapy sessions, etc.), they had great success in accomplishing such tasks. For example, Sean Miller gives praise to the Amity Foundation based in California for their work. In the case of one Mr. John Cadogan, a low-security felon, Amity Foundation’s counselor, Mona Velasquez, helps Cadogan not only distance himself from the drug addiction that got him locked up, but navigate his relationship with his girlfriend, who is still a recreational drug abuser. Workers like Velasquez “believe that drug treatment, counseling, and other programs like the one at Chino greatly improve the chances of prisoners becoming productive members of society. They see such programs as better than keeping offenders locked up, or locking up low-risk prisoners to begin with, which can just harden inmates (Miller).” Going as far as claiming that locking up prisoners is unnecessary is far fetched. But considering the thousands of legal restrictions set up for convicts, and the recent success with rehabilitation services, it seems obvious that convicts would benefit greatly from any services they could be offered (if not inside, then outside of prisons).
Analyzing the pros and cons of rehabilitation services and their proven positive effects on a convict’s status in society, as well as their overall post-sentence health, it may seem like the best choice would be to make these services readily available nationwide. So this begs the question: Why aren’t these services offered more consistently? The simple answer would be the aforementioned underfunding of prison systems. But scholars like Bibas believe that the answer stretches deeper than that. One of his main claims is that the true purpose of american prisons has changed significantly:
Historically, colonial America punished crimes swiftly but temporarily. Only a few convicts were hanged, exiled, or mutilated. Most paid a fine, were shamed in the town square, sat in the stocks or pillory, or were whipped; all of these punishments were brief. Having condemned the crime, the colonists then forgave the criminal, who had paid his debt to society and the victim.
That was in keeping with the colonists’ Christian faith in forgiveness, and it meant there was no permanent underclass of ex-cons.
Having said this, Bibas argues that with all the money earned from prisons, financial gain has become the main purpose of imprisonment. From this point of view, it makes sense to point out that more prisoners in cells equals more money for prison corporations. Therefore, by not offering rehabilitation services to convicts, and making it easier for criminals to slip back into criminal habits, prisons systems set their victims up to end up right back in a cell; a cycle that continues to put money in the prison system’s pocket. A theory so controversial as this may shed some light on the mind-boggling statistic that 75% of criminals will end up back in the prison system within 5 years of their initial release.
On the other side of this argument are those who believe such rehabilitation services are unnecessary for prisoners. From this more unforgiving lens, many, particularly the political right side, are a big proponent of freedoms of our society in this country. They believe that it is the criminal’s irresponsible choosing of criminal activity that got them into such a mess, so it shouldn’t be up to society, government or anyone else but themselves to get out of the mess they created. However, it is the people, organizations, and groups/parties with this mindset that tend to look at a criminal’s actions for what they are instead of focusing on the circumstances surrounding it. In the many cases from their respective books, Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson contextualize the crime with the offender’s family, emotional, financial, and whatever other forms of history could affect the individual’s behavior. Instantly, although the crimes themselves may be legally inexcusable, the individuals don’t seem as evil, or dangerous as I’m sure they were originally framed to be. It is important to realize that a lot of criminals are products of their environment, and the circumstances in which they live. So offering little to no help in terms of rehabilitation is about as unfair as the circumstances that a lot of these individuals were born into. In the words of Bryan Stevenson, “we all need mercy, we all need justice, and-perhaps- we all need some measure of unmerited grace” (18). And quite frankly, the opposing point of view, whether it be conservatives, or the judicial system, often does not even consider these factors when dealing with convicts in the rehabilitation phase of the process.
Works Cited:
-Rivers, Eileen. “Re-Entry into Society, or Back to Prison?” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 31 Dec. 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/policing/reentry/column/2017/12/29/reentry-incarceration-corruption-prison-barriers-recidivism-policing-usa/979903001/.
-ALEXANDER, MICHELLE. NEW JIM CROW: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. NEW PRESS, 2020.
-Bibas, Stephanos. “The Truth about Mass Incarceration.” National Review, National Review, 2 Oct. 2015, https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/09/mass-incarceration-prison-reform/.
-Miller, Sean. “US Prison Inmates Returning to Society: How Will They Be Received?” The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor, 20 May 2012, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0520/US-prison-inmates-returning-to-society-How-will-they-be-received.
-STEVENSON, BRYAN. JUST MERCY: a Story of Justice and Redemption. SCRIBE PUBLICATIONS, 2020.
