I've been so busy with extra work days due to the holiday season, that I've barely time for much of anything. But while I'm still mired in the peak season, there's so much going on about which I'd like to put forth my thoughts that I'm willing to risk a less than ideal quality of post to get at it. I figure changes could be made or notions fleshed out in more detail in the comments section.
Right now, I wish to comment on the First Step Act of prison reform that at the moment, I'm not sure how far along the legislative process it has gone. From what I've been able to read about it, I immediately see problems. I'll begin with this:
"The mass incarceration epidemic in America is a stain on our society that must be eradicated. Lives have been ruined, families torn apart and communities devastated." -Hakeem Jeffries
"Epidemic"??? This foolish statement is at the heart of prison reform. What reform is necessary has less to do with those incarcerated than with how prisons are run. By this I mean that should one break the law, and the penalty for doing so is incarceration, there is no problem here whatsoever. The "epidemic" is crime...NOT incarceration for having committed crimes. It's absurd, yet to insist that lives are ruined and families torn apart...that's on the law-breaker! NOT on the prison system, the court system or law enforcement. This is how it works:
1. The legislative branch of government (fed, state, local) determines which behaviors are prohibited under penalty of law. Engage in one or more of those behaviors, and one has broken the law.
2. Law enforcement seeks out law-breakers and arrests them.
3. The courts decide of the charges against a defendant are legitimate and passes sentence.
4. If the sentence is incarceration, jail or prison is the next stop.
Throughout this process, lives are ruined...namely, the victims of the lawbreaker. The victims include not only those who were robbed, assaulted, murdered, etc., but the families of the lawbreaker (should the lawbreaker have one). The families that are torn apart are not simply the families of the lawbreaker upon his incarceration, but also the families of his victims, should those victims be murdered or hospitalized...and in some cases, so traumatized that the families are essentially broken until such time as the direct victim of the lawbreaker can be healed. And of course, communities are devastated by the commission of crimes against them by lawbreakers. Indeed, there is a ripple effect upon communities, society and the culture from every crime committed.
But the focus is on those who have broken the law with this Act. How is this just? If one is jailed unjustly, what needs reform is either law enforcement or the courts or both. Unjust arrest and sentencing is not a prison concern or issue. And in her support of this Act, Michelle Malkin refers to her investigative reporting that dealt with the wrongly accused. On that score, I believe prisons should facilitate any appeals by prisoners so as to rectify situations of wrongful convictions. I've read elsewhere that not all prison officials are necessarily sympathetic, assuming that anyone who is sent to them must be guilty. We know that isn't true 100% of the time. But I don't think the Act is meant to address these types of cases. So let's focus on actual lawbreakers.
It is said that credits for early release is part of the deal. But why should there be any expected? That is, crime comes with consequences...generally prison time based on the crime, the extent of which determined on case by case basis within predetermined parameters. I don't necessarily oppose "time off for good behavior", as a show of remorse and works to prove it may be used to both keep behavior within prisons in check, as well as to lessen overcrowding. But one must assume the full sentence will be served because justice demands it. Prison is primarily punishment and if one can't do the time....
When breaking the law, the perpetrator has incurred a debt to society and prison is how he pays that debt. It's a well known maxim. But this Act, as has been the case with so many for so long, does not consider prison as punishment. Indeed, many call themselves "correctional facilities". OK. Let's go with that for a moment. I believe that when one finds one's self in prison for having broken a law, one is punished by the loss of one's freedom of movement and during his incarceration should reflect on his deeds and correct his own bad attitude, vowing never again to walk on the dark side.
But any effort to provide the means by which a felon will "rehab" and become a good citizen incurs more debt to society. We each are provided with the means to acquire education from K through 12th grade. We are provided that, in most cases, through the loving donations of the American taxpayer. Additional education is paid for by the citizen or the citizen's parents. Now, we have these scofflaws who are somehow entitled to more education??? Because they broke the law??? It is said by many that it is worth it because recidivism goes down when the scumbags are given training for the outside world. But they had the same chance as everyone else to work hard (as hard as one's situation requires) to acquire that education and training for employment. They chose otherwise and now we're supposed to pay for it while paying for the education and training of ourselves and/or our kids?? No way!
If training for the outside world is what they need, and they are willing to partake in training provided by the prison system, they can have their future earnings garnished to pay back that added burden to society. It's only fair. One joker insisted I provide data that shows that would work. What idiocy!! I'm not concerned with whether such data exists and don't care to research to find out. I'm concerned with justice and there is none by breaking the law and expecting others to pay for your training while serving your punishment!! You owe society, not the other way around!
The First Step Act speaks to providing such training. It also seeks to provide for therapies for addictions and mental health. So really, if you have issues, or if you just can't kick that opioid addiction, rob a liquor store and your troubles are over!! All of this stuff should be at the cost of the felon, not the public.
Another issue is this 500 mile radius rule, which provides easier access for family members. All in all, I don't have a problem with this in theory, but again, there are problems attached. The first is, boo-freakin'-hoo. It's too bad your family is so far away. Whose fault is that? The judge? The prison? Your family? No. It's the fault of the convict for having broken the law. So if it's a burden on the family, why is that our problem?
What's more, what of those high crime areas? Metropolitan areas have more crime. How can convicts be guaranteed they'll be close to family if so many from the same cities are locked up? What do we do? Build more prisons so that no one is too far from those who care to visit? I don't see that there's any way they'll be able to accommodate all prisoners.
Finally, there is the desire to reconsider sentencing with regard to non-violent crimes. Fine. But I don't want to find out that sentences are reduced to relieve overcrowding. I don't care that lawbreakers have to sleep ten to a cell. Don't break the law and one needn't worry about such things. But again, that's not a prison issue. It's a court issue and a legislative issue. Change the law, if sentences are deemed too long. But the punishment must fit the crime, and that means not lessening the punishment just as it means don't overdo it.
The real problem of course isn't an "epidemic" of incarcerations. It isn't that minorities are locked up disproportionately. It isn't that prison needs to be fair, if by fair one means, no suffering. The problem is moral decay which leads to more crime for which people are arrested and locked up. But how do we solve that? It's that sin nature thing. Perhaps we should just teach people not to break the law (as if we haven't been doing that). That's how we're supposed to solve the "rape epidemic", so it should work equally well here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment