I have been studying here in Philadelphia for a few years now. One of my favorite landmarks to visit here is the Eastern State Penitentiary. Built in 1929, it eventually became a model for over 300 prisons worldwide.
When construction on the prison first began, it was supposed to only house 250 prisoners. The original intent of the penitentiary was to completely isolate the prisoners, not just as punishment, but to encourage introspection and "penitence," hence the name. By the time the prison closed in 1971, it could hold 900 prisoners, by forcing multiple occupants into cells originally intended to only hold one.
This highlights what I consider to be one of the gravest injustices in this country today:
- There are currently approximately 2.3 million prisoners in the United States today.
- On the other hand, There are only about 900,000 police officers employed in the US.
This seems to me to be completely different from how supposedly civilized, progressive nations should operate.
The purpose of imprisoning people, some might argue, is that criminals need to be punished, not just for the sake of punishment itself, but to somehow pay a debt to society, or so that they will not commit crimes when they're released.
I would argue that they would better pay off their debt to society by actually contributing like the rest of us, through employment and consumption, instead of spending months, years on end networking with other criminals without having to pay rent or mortgage.
Additionally, a study in 1994 found that over 60% of people released from prison will be rearrested within three years of their release, and about 50% will be back in jail.
Another argument for imprisoning people is that by getting them off the streets, they won't be able to commit any more crimes, and the crime rate will decrease.
Since 1980, incarceration rates have increased from about 250 to 743 per 100,000 in 2009, or about a 200% increase.
Since 1980, the crime rate has dropped from about 5900 to about 3466 per 100,000 in 2009, or about a 40% decrease.
- In other words, it takes five people thrown in jail to have one less crime committed.
This leads me to offer the following alternative:
- Release all or most of the people currently incarcerated in the US, or drastically reduce sentences (except for the most violent criminals).
- Replace punishment with a system primarily based on fines, probation, and community service.
- Use money that used to go toward incarceration to hire more police officers and other crime-prevention.
- Not all the people currently in jail are hardened criminals. Only about 10% of total crime committed falls within the violent category.
- Punishing criminals costs us all a lot of money.
- Criminals are not complete non-contributors to society. In addition to community service, most will be working, paying rent or mortgages, consuming products. This is all beneficial for the economy, none of which would happen if they are incarcerated.
- More police officers, while not necessarily contributing to a lower crime rate, would likely improve perceptions of safety and government consideration. Communities will benefit from the additional law enforcement presence, as well as from the improved perceptions.
- Time spent in prison is time spent away from loved ones, plain and simple. Emotional bonds are severed, often times irreparably. It is wrong to commit crimes, but it is also wrong to tear families apart.
One argument might be that with so many more criminals out on the streets, crime will undoubtedly go up. However, this is a simplistic prediction. For one thing, the money that was used to imprison people is freed up to pay for more police officers. Now, does more police officer equal less crime? Again, that is not necessarily the case. According to this article from 2007, a study by John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas at Dallas found increasing the number of police officers by approximately 80,000 had little to no effect on the rate of violent crimes during the 1990's.
However, the authors of the study noted that this increase only amounted to roughly "one extra cop per local police department." Had the areas with the highest crime rates been targeted directly, there would have likely been a significant effect on overall crime rates.
In other words, if all the money being used to house prisoners in this country were instead used on police officers, we could hire an additional 1 million police officers. If we also target only the areas with the highest crime rates, we could essentially add an average 10000 police officers to the 100 cities with the highest crime rates. Even an additional 1000 police officers would be noticeable.
Obviously, this is a simplistic estimate, and several factors will lead to the reality probably being less dramatic.
Still, the point is that the money currently being used to incarcerate people could instead be used to employ police officers.
If we truly want to punish criminals, they should be forced to live in the communities and amongst the citizens they victimize. Some might argue that the people themselves do not want the convicted felons living around them, and would feel less safe. To that I say, living in Philadelphia, I know from experience that I will never be truly safe from crime, no matter how many criminals are off the streets and in jail.
I realize that in this country, a monumental policy and government change such as this one is next to impossible. Still, that is no reason to allow obvious injustices to go unchallenged.
The prison system does not prevent recidivism. It does not discourage the next generation of criminals. It is a broken system. Let's try something new.
I have a lot of faith in my fellow human beings, even the ones who are now in jail. It's quite possible that a change such as this one would wreak havoc in the community. However, I feel the number of people damaged by the system we currently have far outnumber the people who would fall victim to criminals if such a change were to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment