The business of criminalization
Early this morning while at the gym on the treadmill I was watching and listening to a television program on prisons. This seems to be a regular program on Sunday morning although when I googled I was not sure I was identifying the same program. At any rate, again this morning I was challenged to question what I sometimes think I know or do not know about we humans and our ability to live with each other. There were six groups of people associated with prisons featured on the program during the short time that I watched. There were:
The guards and administrative staff.
The health care team members including doctors, nurses, and counselors/psychologists.
The mentally ill inmates convicted of and serving time for a crime.
Those who have completed their sentence, but are determined to still be too dangerous to society to be released.
The inmates who have been convicted of one or more of a range of crimes falling under the general label of sexual predator.
Those being treated for mental illness until they are competent to stand trial - competent to stand trial is determined by an assessment of their ability to understand their charges.
The individuals responsible for both the flavor and content of the program were careful to insure that the viewer understood that jails and prisons are now often the most common large-scale institution for housing the mentally ill.
At least during the time that I watched the program today and past Sunday mornings, no specific mention was made of the fact that jails and prisons are a significant piece of the economy in the United States. In the past decade or two it has become more common to outsource prisons and jails. Many of these contracts include a guaranteed occupancy rate. Many state and federal jails also outsource such services such as food service, medical care, supplies, inmate accounts, and other services. Each of these can represent a significant profit for the company which provides the particular service. One example is the cost to deposit money in an inmate account. This cost is borne by the friend or family member of the inmate.
The mission of the judicial system, on the whole, in the United States is to protect the public from those who would commit criminal acts. There are, as most know, a significant number of codified criminal acts in the United States. The definition of criminal act is determined by community, state, and federal laws. Since the inception of the United States the determination of what constitutes a criminal act changes. There was a time when interracial marriage, homosexual acts between consenting adults, the use of even a small amount of marijuana or other “illegal” drugs, the purchase or selling of sexual activity, being nude or otherwise exposed, and, of course, stealing, murder or otherwise taking advantage of the vulnerable when it is not sanctioned by the some governmental authority. Treating prisoners, mentally ill or other vulnerable members of a community as less then, killing to protect national interest or security by military or law enforcement groups such as the CIA, profiting from incarcerating people, purchasing a judgeship or other political office, or paying someone less than a living wage is not necessarily a crime. Using sex to sell a product even if that product is a person running for political office or offering sex to a marriage partner for a high monetary profit are not crimes. Mental illness is apparently a crime although no one is charged and convicted with being mentally ill. One is charged and convicted with the act which may be performed because of a mental illness or because the community decided that mental health services were not a budgetary priority.
Once branded a common criminal as opposed to say, a white collar criminal, it is very difficult to re-establish oneself as a respected member of the community. Recently there have been some attempts to make the transition from convicted criminal to community member a little easier for some by re-instating voting rights and the right to housing assistance. There are, however, many exclusions.
At the same time that we are spending a lot of money to ensure that the person labeled as a criminal does not have any self-respect, self-esteem, skills or license to earn a living once they are released from jail or prison, we may be experimenting with such programs as those discussed in the television program I saw this morning. That program was to teach empathy. It was the job of the counseling staff to model empathy within a system designed to insure that the person convicted knew what a worthless person he (or she in other prisons) is. This raises some interesting questions:
Can empathy be taught?
Are some people incapable of empathizing because of physical difference such as the possible lack of mirror neurons?
Is it safe to have empathy in a prison system?
Can we simultaneously punish and teach such skills or qualities as empathy?
Actually when I began writing this morning I was going to examine these and related questions about empathy within the context of the judicial system. I found myself addressing another question. That is the question of whether the dual motives of profit and punishment are consistent with creating a more just and safer community. I assume, which may be dangerous, that all of us in a society want to believe and experience being valued and that we can afford to be empathetic. Once we label and punish the mentally ill as criminals and then incarcerate them in a profit-making prison and jail system which requires the allegiance and loyalty of millions of employees to the lie that they are not and cannot be us or we cannot be them, then one must address the question of the efficacy of and even saneness of teaching concepts such as empathy to this population. Please do not tell me you respect me even though I am worthless. I am reminded of what I frequently heard from so-called Christians, “Love the sinner but not the sin.” Frequently this was said to someone whose sin was being the person they were born to be, i.e., gay. Telling a person that they love them but hate who they are never did compute in my wee brain. It still does not.
It is not, of course, just a question about the mentally ill. There is an even larger question of the self-interest of those who create the laws which define who is to be considered a criminal. Is profit – financial or political – consistent with creating a more just and safer community?
Written May 22, 2016
Early this morning while at the gym on the treadmill I was watching and listening to a television program on prisons. This seems to be a regular program on Sunday morning although when I googled I was not sure I was identifying the same program. At any rate, again this morning I was challenged to question what I sometimes think I know or do not know about we humans and our ability to live with each other. There were six groups of people associated with prisons featured on the program during the short time that I watched. There were:
The guards and administrative staff.
The health care team members including doctors, nurses, and counselors/psychologists.
The mentally ill inmates convicted of and serving time for a crime.
Those who have completed their sentence, but are determined to still be too dangerous to society to be released.
The inmates who have been convicted of one or more of a range of crimes falling under the general label of sexual predator.
Those being treated for mental illness until they are competent to stand trial - competent to stand trial is determined by an assessment of their ability to understand their charges.
The individuals responsible for both the flavor and content of the program were careful to insure that the viewer understood that jails and prisons are now often the most common large-scale institution for housing the mentally ill.
At least during the time that I watched the program today and past Sunday mornings, no specific mention was made of the fact that jails and prisons are a significant piece of the economy in the United States. In the past decade or two it has become more common to outsource prisons and jails. Many of these contracts include a guaranteed occupancy rate. Many state and federal jails also outsource such services such as food service, medical care, supplies, inmate accounts, and other services. Each of these can represent a significant profit for the company which provides the particular service. One example is the cost to deposit money in an inmate account. This cost is borne by the friend or family member of the inmate.
The mission of the judicial system, on the whole, in the United States is to protect the public from those who would commit criminal acts. There are, as most know, a significant number of codified criminal acts in the United States. The definition of criminal act is determined by community, state, and federal laws. Since the inception of the United States the determination of what constitutes a criminal act changes. There was a time when interracial marriage, homosexual acts between consenting adults, the use of even a small amount of marijuana or other “illegal” drugs, the purchase or selling of sexual activity, being nude or otherwise exposed, and, of course, stealing, murder or otherwise taking advantage of the vulnerable when it is not sanctioned by the some governmental authority. Treating prisoners, mentally ill or other vulnerable members of a community as less then, killing to protect national interest or security by military or law enforcement groups such as the CIA, profiting from incarcerating people, purchasing a judgeship or other political office, or paying someone less than a living wage is not necessarily a crime. Using sex to sell a product even if that product is a person running for political office or offering sex to a marriage partner for a high monetary profit are not crimes. Mental illness is apparently a crime although no one is charged and convicted with being mentally ill. One is charged and convicted with the act which may be performed because of a mental illness or because the community decided that mental health services were not a budgetary priority.
Once branded a common criminal as opposed to say, a white collar criminal, it is very difficult to re-establish oneself as a respected member of the community. Recently there have been some attempts to make the transition from convicted criminal to community member a little easier for some by re-instating voting rights and the right to housing assistance. There are, however, many exclusions.
At the same time that we are spending a lot of money to ensure that the person labeled as a criminal does not have any self-respect, self-esteem, skills or license to earn a living once they are released from jail or prison, we may be experimenting with such programs as those discussed in the television program I saw this morning. That program was to teach empathy. It was the job of the counseling staff to model empathy within a system designed to insure that the person convicted knew what a worthless person he (or she in other prisons) is. This raises some interesting questions:
Can empathy be taught?
Are some people incapable of empathizing because of physical difference such as the possible lack of mirror neurons?
Is it safe to have empathy in a prison system?
Can we simultaneously punish and teach such skills or qualities as empathy?
Actually when I began writing this morning I was going to examine these and related questions about empathy within the context of the judicial system. I found myself addressing another question. That is the question of whether the dual motives of profit and punishment are consistent with creating a more just and safer community. I assume, which may be dangerous, that all of us in a society want to believe and experience being valued and that we can afford to be empathetic. Once we label and punish the mentally ill as criminals and then incarcerate them in a profit-making prison and jail system which requires the allegiance and loyalty of millions of employees to the lie that they are not and cannot be us or we cannot be them, then one must address the question of the efficacy of and even saneness of teaching concepts such as empathy to this population. Please do not tell me you respect me even though I am worthless. I am reminded of what I frequently heard from so-called Christians, “Love the sinner but not the sin.” Frequently this was said to someone whose sin was being the person they were born to be, i.e., gay. Telling a person that they love them but hate who they are never did compute in my wee brain. It still does not.
It is not, of course, just a question about the mentally ill. There is an even larger question of the self-interest of those who create the laws which define who is to be considered a criminal. Is profit – financial or political – consistent with creating a more just and safer community?
Written May 22, 2016
RSS Feed