SOC 305 Crime & Society week 1 dicussion

Er ik

a Ky

te /P

ho to

nn ic

a/ G

et ty

Im ag

es

Learning Objectives

• Understand desired outcomes for different types of criminal punishment.

• Articulate similarities and differences between philosophies of punishment.

• Explain when the correctional system applies different philosophies of punishment.

• Analyze how criminal punishment affects women, the poor, and racial and ethnic minorities.

• Critically evaluate how race, class, and gender issues come into play in death penalty cases.

Philosophies of Punishment

2

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 33 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.1 Philosophies of Punishment CHAPTER 2

In 1988, Tina Elliot tried to buy a half kilo of cocaine from an undercover officer in Georgia. She was convicted and was sent to the Georgia state prison for a year. Upon her release, Tina and her five children were reunited, but in 1993 she was indicted by federal prosecutors for the same offense and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Terry Woodard found himself in the same situation in 1989. After successfully completing 2 years of state parole supervision for possession with intent to distribute methamphet- amine, he was arrested and convicted for the same offense in federal court and sentenced to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

The punishment of Tina Elliot and Terry Woodard reflects what some criminologists call dangerization. Dangerization is a view that assumes that society can be protected by predicting and controlling the risk and danger of victimization that some individuals pose to society (Lianos & Douglas, 2000). In this case, the decision to prosecute Elliot and Woodard twice for the same offense may have been based on the perceived danger and harm that both offenders continue to pose to society even after having been punished by serving time in state prisons. Under some circumstances, in cases such as Elliot’s and Woodard’s, prosecution and punishment by the state and the federal governments for the same offense do not violate the U.S. constitutional protection known as double jeopardy.

2.1 Philosophies of Punishment

In this chapter we will examine why and how we punish offenders, as well as several philosophies of punishment and various methods employed to try to control crimi-nal behavior. In general, society adopts a philosophy of punishment hoping it will effectively prevent or reduce crime. Punishment, in short, is the use of a penalty to inflict consequences on those who violate the criminal law. In his 1968 influential book, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, Herbert L. Packer, emphasized two major functions of punishment: inflicting pain and preventing crime. Traditionally, these forms of penal- ties have been based on different philosophies of punishment including retribution (eye-for-an-eye), incapacitation (incarceration), rehabilitation (treatment), reintegration, and deterrence. The pain inflicted through these penalties consists of the restrictions imposed on the freedom and independence of the offender. Each state and the federal government has a department of corrections in charge of the administration of the punish- ment imposed by the court system to accused and convicted offenders.

Retribution

Retribution is a backward-looking philosophy based on the principle that offenders should pay for the harm they have caused, and that the penalty imposed should be pro- portional to the offense. Proportionality means that the punishment imposed by the court to the offender corresponds to the seriousness of the offense and what in the opinion of the court should be done to protect the public. The doctrine of proportionality can be traced to the work of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), the Italian philosopher and criminal justice reformer mentioned in Chapter 1. Beccaria rejected the methods of punishments used during the middle ages that emphasized public executions of criminals and the use of torture and physical pain. He proposed a utilitarian view of punishment according to

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 34 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.1 Philosophies of Punishment CHAPTER 2

which the benefits of punishment should be measured by its capacity to deter actual and potential criminals from harming society.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution not only prohibits corporal punishment but also opposes disproportionate punishment. This raises the question as to what con- stitutes the most appropriate and proportional punishment for different offenses. In 1972, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, described the death penalty as “the expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct.” In the opin- ion of the Court, the death penalty is proportional to the crime of murder, in part, because it reflects public outrage against people who commit such a hideous crime. The Court further implies that the imposition or threat of the death penalty will prevent people from taking the law in their own hands through vigilante justice or lynching. However, contro- versy remains regarding whether the execution of a criminal is or should be equivalent to a sentence intended to incapacitate offenders.

Incapacitation

Incapacitation refers to any sentence that restricts the physical capacity of offenders to commit crimes. The primary form of incapacitation is incarceration, and the ultimate and most severe form is the death penalty. Incarceration is based on the assumption that the government can protect the public by putting offenders in prisons and jails. It is also assumed that incarceration has a deterrence effect because it sends a message to potential offenders and the public that crime “doesn’t pay.” However, there is no conclusive evi- dence that incarceration reduces crime rates.

From 1980 to 2010, the number of people in prison and jail increased from 501,886 to 2,266,832 (Glaze, 2011). A recent poll shows that American voters believe too many people are in prison and that the nation spends too much on imprisonment. The poll also shows that the overwhelming majority of people support policies that shift nonviolent offenders from prison to less expensive alternatives (Mellman Group, 2012). However, the idea that incarceration decreases crime has been widely accepted by the public, despite evidence to the contrary.

In the long run incarceration tends to increase crime rates because inmates who are released back into the community with a criminal record and without job skills have to depend on criminal activities to survive (Spelman, 2000; Lynch & Sabol, 2001). A study conducted by Langan and Levin (2002) shows that the majority of the inmates released from prison, particularly property and drug offenders, are rearrested and reconvicted for a new offense within 3 years after their release from prison. Many of these reconvicted inmates have to serve long sentences, which contributes to prison crowding, an aging prison population, and the need to build more prisons (Lawrence & Travis, 2004; Stephan, 2008). Currently, Texas, Florida, California, and New York hold approximately 36% of the 1,359,616 state prisoners (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). At a global level, the United States has the highest incarceration rate among industrialized countries, with approximately 730 adults incarcerated per 100,000 U.S. residents (see Figure 2.1). Following the conflict criminology perspective discussed in Chapter 1, some criminologists believe that the expansion of the prison population and the correctional system in the United States has become a tool to control the poor and the underclass (Reiman & Leighton, 2010).

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 35 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.1 Philosophies of Punishment CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.1: Incarceration rates among industrialized countries, 2009

Based on data from the International Centre for Prison Studies http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats .php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

In recent years, the United States has taken a “get-tough on crime” approach. This approach is based on the use of incarceration as a crime reduction tool not just against violent crimes but also against nonviolent offenses, particularly drug offenses.

United Kingdom

United States

Russia Iran Brazil Mexico China Canada France Germany Japan

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Web Field Trip: Is Isolation Constitutional? After the brutal and corporal nature of early punishments, the Quakers developed the penitentiary as a humane alternative to torture. However, when Charles Dickens toured the prison, he painted a very different picture and described it as a horrible place. Despite early reactions, supermax prisons for dangerous offenders are popular in the United States today. The Supreme Court of the United States has not decided whether they violate the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, but research has suggested this may be the case. Many prisoners in isolation are not in for their crimes but rather for altercations while in prison, and it can take an average of 2 years to get out of solitary confinement.

Colorado State Penitentiary houses hundreds of prisoners, all of whom are in solitary confine- ment. Watch part of the video on this prison and listen to the prisoner’s interviews at http://video .nationalgeographic.com/video/player/national-geographic-channel/full-episodes/explorer/ ngc-solitary-confinement.html

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do any of the comments from the inmates remind you of what Charles Dickens said over 150 years ago?

2. Is solitary confinement humane and constitutional? 3. Is there a good alternative to solitary confinement?

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 36 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.1 Philosophies of Punishment CHAPTER 2

Rehabilitation

The concept of rehabilitation means to restore an offender to a useful and functional mental and social capacity. It is assumed that offenders have experienced life events that have disrupted their capacity to function in society. Contemporary advocates of rehabili- tation view criminals as victims of social and economic conditions that led them to find in crime a way out of their disadvantaged and oppressive conditions. Hence, criminals should be given an opportunity to change their lives through treatment to address their emotional, social, and personal problems while in prison. Offenders who do not pose a serious threat to society should remain in the community under probation supervision, halfway houses, or rehabilitation programs. Rehabilitation advocates argue that treat- ment is not only beneficial for offenders but also for the community because it is less expensive than incarceration.

The rehabilitation philosophy lost its appeal after the publication of Robert Martinson’s 1974 influential article “What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform” (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 1975). Martinson’s review of 231 evaluations of treatment and rehabilitation programs implemented from 1945 to 1967 led him to conclude that they had no “appreciable effects on recidivism” (Martinson, 1974, p. 25). In 1979, Martinson retracted his 1974 conclusion and claimed that “some treatment programs do have an appreciable effect on recidivism” (Martinson 1979, p. 244). However, many policy makers in corrections took Martinson’s “nothing works” conclusion very seriously and began to move away from rehabilitation and treatment models in prison. Faced with a booming prison population, many states adopted a community-based model that emphasized a philosophy of reintegration.

Reintegration

While rehabilitation is aimed at changing the personality of offenders, reintegration is a philosophy that emphasizes the capacity of offenders to be part of the community upon release from prison or while participating in community supervision. Borrowing from labeling theory discussed in Chapter 1, reintegration advocates viewed incarceration and the criminal justice system as major impediments for the successful reintegration of the offenders into the community. Labeling theorists argued that incarceration bru- talizes offenders, deepens antisocial behavior, and stigmatizes offenders (Schwartz & Skolnick, 1962; Dean-Myrda & Cullen, 1998). As a result, convicted offenders oftentimes are unable to find jobs and are rejected by the community due to the stigma attached to having been convicted. Reintegration advocates used the labeling argument to jus- tify their recommendations to divert offenders from the criminal justice system through community-based correctional programs. The main objective of reintegration is to keep offenders, particularly nonviolent offenders, in contact with their families, sources of employment, and education.

The movement to keep offenders within the community has led to the creation of inter- mediate sanctions, that is, a set of penalties that are not as severe as incarceration but that are stricter than standard probation. Intermediate sanctions include house arrest, electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol testing, curfews, boot camps, and intensive probation supervision. Intermediate sanctions are used in combination with standard probation depending on the seriousness of the offense and the potential threat posed

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 37 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.1 Philosophies of Punishment CHAPTER 2

by the offender to the community. A community-correction officer uses a sanction sever- ity table to select a penalty that would fit the behavior of the offender and the person’s risk of recidivism, meaning, the probability that the offender will repeat the illegal behavior after having been punished or having gone through treatment. The system of intermediate sanctions has evolved into graduated sanctions, or a set of penalties orga- nized from least to most restrictive used by correctional officers to control the behavior of offenders by increasing or decreasing sanctions according to the offender ’s behavior (Howell, 2009). The main goal is to coerce offenders to participate in rehabilitation and treatment programs.

Restitution

The philosophy of restitution means that offenders should reimburse the victims and society for the damages, expenses, and losses resulting from their crimes. Offenders may be required to repay the victims for the financial damages caused or the property lost or other harms, and society for the costs of arresting, prosecuting, and supervising the offender. The enforcement of restitution orders and the collection of fines pose the chal- lenge of addressing the limited capacity of some offenders to pay. A fine might be con- sidered an inconvenience for a wealthy offender whereas for a poor offender the same fine could mean a very harsh punishment. In some cases, restitution laws prevent people who owe fines from registering motor vehicles or renewing driver’s licenses as a way of tracking down those who owe restitution—a situation that aggravates the capacity of the offenders to get and maintain jobs and puts them at risk of spending time in jail (Reynolds et al., 2009).

In some cases, the government may impose a forfeiture penalty as part of a restitution order. Forfeiture means the confiscation by the government of any assets resulting from a crime (e.g., money, property) or used for the commission of a crime (e.g., vehicles, houses, businesses). Once confiscated, victims are notified and they can recover their property. The government has the authority to keep nonclaimed assets. Critics of forfeiture laws claim that forfeiture programs encourage police departments to use aggressive enforce- ment of those laws that are likely to produce large amounts of forfeiture assets that would increase their revenues (Miller & Selva, 1994; Hyde, 1995; Norman & Sanders, 2011).

Deterrence

The term deterrence means to discourage and stop by fear the negative conduct of people. The philosophy of deterrence dates back to the classical school of criminology discussed in Chapter 1, which describes people as rational individuals having free will to make decisions. Hence, rational individuals would try to avoid making decisions that would produce negative or painful results for them. Based on this principle, the judicial system may impose a punishment as a form of specific deterrence, that is, to discourage a par- ticular person from reoffending. In other instances, the punishment would be imposed as a general deterrence tool—in other words, to discourage potential offenders from com- mitting crimes. Unlike retribution, deterrence is forward-looking. That is, with deterrence the focus is on preventing future crime through swift, certain, and severe punishment.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 38 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.2 Death Penalty: Retribution and Deterrence CHAPTER 2

Advocates of deterrence believe that if nothing works in terms of reforming offenders, law- makers must pass tough laws to discourage people from engaging in illegal conduct. For instance, the Federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 abolished parole eligibil- ity for offenders who committed federal offenses on or after November 1, 1987. Similarly, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 established the federal sentencing guidelines aimed at reducing sentencing disparities and eliminating indeterminate sentences. The federal government also approved truth-in-sentencing legislation, which forced federal offenders to serve a substantial portion of their prison sentence, typically 85% of the prison sentence (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). These changes were followed by the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences for convicted federal offenders. Evalua- tions of these policies have shown that they have worked against African Americans and Hispanics (McDonald & Carlson, 1993).

The general deterrent effect of punitive legislation is difficult to determine (Nagin, 1998; Wright, 2010). For example, in 1998 Congress passed a law (and subsequent amendments) that disqualified students who had been convicted for drug possession from receiving financial aid under certain conditions. Implicitly, the legislators expected the law to reduce the number of students using illegal drugs as a result of the harsh penalty imposed by being disqualified to receive federal aid. Studies have been able to document the number of students not deterred by the law based on the number of students disqualified. However, it has been difficult to determine how many students who qualify for federal financial aid have stayed away from dealing with illegal drugs because of fear of being disqualified if they get arrested and convicted for a drug offense. Studies also indicate that the law has disproportionately affected “African Americans and Latinos who are arrested and convicted of drug offenses at a much higher rate than whites” (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2002). The law also made voluntary participation and completion of a drug rehabilitation program prerequisites to regain financial aid eligibility. This condition may have a negative impact on low-income students unless they have access to affordable or cost-free drug treatment programs.

2.2 Death Penalty: Retribution and Deterrence

The philosophies of punishment discussed in the previous section have affected the criminal justice system and society in many significant ways. We now turn our attention to the issue of how the philosophies of punishment inform and justify policies of death penalty and examine the impact of those policies on different members of society based on social class, race, ethnicity, and gender. The death penalty is based on a philosophy of retribution that says it is morally acceptable to execute a person who has viciously taken another person’s life. In 2010, 36 states and the federal government held 3,158 on death row. Together, California, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania held half of all state death row inmates (1,550), and the federal government held 58 inmates on death row. The number of inmates on death row decreased from 3,540 in 2000 to 3,158 in 2010, and the number of executions from 85 in 2,000 to 46 in 2010. However, it is taking longer to execute death row inmates, from an average of 12 years for those executed in 2000 to 15 years for the executions in 2011 (Snell, 2001, 2011).

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 39 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.2 Death Penalty: Retribution and Deterrence CHAPTER 2

There is no consensus in society regarding the death penalty. Those in favor of it argue that murderers should be killed, and their execution should serve as a form of general deterrence. If released, murderers will continue victimizing people; therefore, executions may save the lives of many potential innocent victims. Defenders of the death penalty also suggest that it is a cost-effective way to eliminate the added expense of housing serious criminals in prison for life. Other propo- nents argue that the execution of the offender will bring closure and will allow survivors to move on with their lives (Armour & Umbreit, 2007; Gross & Matheson, 2003).

Deterrence or Brutalization?

In 1975, economist Isaac Ehrlich published a study showing an inverse statistical relation- ship between murder rates and execution rates (Ehrlich, 1975); that is, more executions are linked to lower murders. However, current studies have found that the death penalty has little deterrent effect on homicides (Stolzenberg & D’Alessio, 2004; Fagan, 2006; Weisberg, 2005). John J. Dono-

hue and Justin Wolfers’ reexamination of a large number of studies on the deterrence effect of the death penalty led them to conclude that “Neither adoption nor abolition of the death penalty could reliably be causally linked to homicide rates” (Donohue & Wolfers, 2005, p. 836). Since many murders are the product of the heat of passion or related to alcohol or drug use, it is doubtful that fear of the death penalty would deter people from killing under these circumstances.

A more recent study indicates that the death penalty can have either a deterrent effect or a brutalization effect. The death penalty can have a deterrent effect only if the government executes and publicizes nine or more murderers over a 20-year period (Shepherd, 2005). However, sporadic executions and low publicity of executions may have a brutalization effect; that is, the death penalty may actually reinforce the perception that killing is accept- able and even increase copycat killings (Shepherd, 2005; Cochran, Chamlin, & Seth, 1994). Because evaluations of death penalty studies have found serious methodological prob- lems, researchers have urged policy makers to be careful in considering the use of those findings for policy purposes (Donohue & Wolfers, 2005). Caution is also necessary due to the possibility of errors in the prosecution of death penalty cases as evidenced by the 289 postconviction DNA exonerations since 1989 (Innocence Project, 2012). Critics of the death penalty also argue that the recidivism rates of released murderers may be linked to poor release decisions and the failure of post-release supervision programs. Hence, rather than taking a punitive approach to deal with convicted killers, policy makers should concen- trate their efforts on developing more effective risk assessment tools for parole decisions and more effective post-release supervision.

Tony Garcia/Stone/Getty Images

The death penalty is a hotly debated topic in American society due to its ethical and financial considerations.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 40 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.2 Death Penalty: Retribution and Deterrence CHAPTER 2

The Cost of the Death Penalty

Antideath penalty critics argue that the cost of prosecuting and executing an inmate is significantly higher than the cost of keeping the same inmate in prison for life. Across the country, legislators have considered abolishing the death penalty due to its high cost (Urbina, 2009). A Kansas legislative report estimated that the median cost of processing a death penalty case is $1.2 million, or 70% more than the cost of a murder case where the death penalty was not sought after (Kansas Legislative Post Audit Committee, 2003). Studies in North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, California, Washington State, and New Jersey have found similar results (Ebert, 2007; Howard, 2007; California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, 2008). At the federal level, the average cost of defending a person charged with a death penalty offense when the prosecutor did not seek the death penalty is about $55,772, compared to $218,112 for a similar case in which the prosecutor decided to seek the death penalty (Spencer, Robin, & Edmunds, 1998). Death penalty cases are more expensive to prosecute, investigate, and appeal than nondeath penalty murder cases (Dieter, 2003). In addition, the fact that 25 to 30% of all death penalty cases are overturned on appeal means that many offenders sentenced to death may have been wrongfully convicted or that the judicial system did not apply the death penalty law appropriately (Ebert, 2007).

The Death Penalty and Survivors’ Grief

Finally, some researchers have questioned the assumption that the death penalty helps surviving family members of murdered victims to put an end to their grief. Interviews with survivors of murdered family members tend to show that months after the execu- tion, and after having received therapy, many survivors show signs of ambivalence as to whether the death of the offender was a harsher punishment than having kept the person in prison for life (Gross & Matheson, 2003; Murphy & Johnson, 2003). In cases where the convicted offender is exonerated, survivors have to cope with the stress, confusion, guilt, and despair produced by the thought that the real murderer may be free in society.

Given the alleged problems with the death penalty presented in this section, examining the impact the death penalty may have on different groups in society is important. Some criminologists argue that factors such as gender, social class, race, and ethnicity may influ- ence the decision to impose the death penalty.

Women and the Death Penalty In 2011, 63 women were on death row, or approximately 2% of the death row inmates. Because of the low number, women on death row are often referred to as the forgotten population (ACLU, 2004). There have been 12 female inmates executed since 1976 when the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty. Of the 12, 2 were executed using the electric chair, and the other 10 were executed using lethal injection (Death Penalty Infor- mation Center, 2012). A study found that women on death row are more likely than men to have killed a family member or somebody they knew. In addition, about half of the women on death row report having been victims of child abuse, partner abuse, or both; and a fourth of them reported suffering mental illness. In many instances, these factors are not brought out at trial to be taken into account in deciding between life in prison and death (ACLU, 2004).

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 41 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.2 Death Penalty: Retribution and Deterrence CHAPTER 2

Social Class and the Death Penalty Social class refers to a group of people who share similar levels of education, occupation, income, and wealth. In general, prisoners on death row tend to come from low education and low-income families. Of the 3,254 state and federal inmates on death row in 2005, 51% did not complete high school or a GED (Snell, 2006), and about 95% of them are poor (Hadji-Ristic, 2007). The low socioeconomic status of many death row inmates means that they may have to depend on public defenders with low or inadequate experience in death penalty cases and who have limited resources to effectively represent the accused in court.

In 2003 in Wiggins v. Smith (2003), the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins who was found guilty of capital murder in 1988. The Supreme Court

In 2003, convinced that the state death penalty system was defective, the governor of Illi- nois removed four women (three African Americans and one Latina) from death row and changed their sentences to life in prison. Like men sentenced to death, women on death row have been exposed to ineffective counsel due to the assistance of public defenders with little or no experience in death penalty cases. In 1992, a court in Alabama reversed the death sentence of Judy Haney and resentenced her to life in prison for killing her hus- band. The court found that her lawyer, who at one point appeared in court drunk, had failed to introduce hospital evidence showing that Haney was a battered woman (ACLU, 2004). As in the case of Judy Haney, women convicted of murder are generally more likely than men to have hired a killer to commit their homicide rather than do the killing them- selves. Some states consider hiring a killer as an aggravating factor that weighs in favor of imposing of the death penalty (Streib, 2005).

Case Study: Aileen Wuornos, Serial Killer In 1992, Aileen Wuornos was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of Richard Mallory during an armed robbery. This was just one of six murders she committed. During the highly publicized trial, experts indicated that she suffered serious mental problems that impaired her ability to distinguish between right and wrong. The defense claimed that she was the victim of rape and sexual abuse and that she killed the men in self-defense. In 2002, Wuornos was executed by lethal injec- tion in Florida. Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFBcjII3QAE to view an interview with Aileen Wuornos the day before she was exe- cuted. Note: contains strong language.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you agree with the execution of Wuornos? Why? 2. Do you think that the high publicity her trial received influenced

the death penalty decision? 3. What would feminist criminologists say about the execution of

Wuornos?

Getty Images/Handout

Aileen Wuornos was one of the few women to be executed since the 1976 reinstatement of the death penalty.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 42 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.2 Death Penalty: Retribution and Deterrence CHAPTER 2

found that Wiggins’ court-appointed counsels did not conduct a complete investigation despite the fact that they had funds to hire a forensic social worker. In other instances, hiring expert witnesses becomes a problem if the state pays expert witnesses at the end of the trial. This situation forces court-appointed attorneys to bear the expert witness’ cost of investigation, travel, and evaluation of technical reports in order to provide effec- tive representation in death penalty cases. Since prosecutors tend to have more resources than appointed counsel, they do not face the same limitations in hiring expert witnesses (Equal Justice Initiative, 2012). On March 2012, a judge in Alabama moved the trial of Amy Bishop, who is facing the death penalty for killing three of her university faculty colleagues in 2010, to a later day because the government did not authorize the payments for expert witnesses and diagnostic psychological and psychiatric tests (Lawson, 2012). Bishop’s court-appointed attorney claimed that the authorization of the up-front payment was necessary to protect Bishop’s right to a fair trial.

Race, Ethnicity, and the Death Penalty Criminologists have paid great attention to the disproportionate number of Black inmates on death row. Disproportionality occurs when a group of people are overrepresented in a given statistic compared to their number in the general population. In the case of the death penalty, there is disproportionality because Blacks represent only 12.6% of the U.S. population, yet they represent 28% of the death row population and 28% of the executions (Snell, 2011).

Researchers have offered different interpretations for the disproportional number of Black inmates on death row. A proposed explanation suggests that “since African Americans comprise a large proportion of the population and of the murder population in the South, the African-American disproportion on death row is stronger there” (Blume, Eisenberg, & Wells, 2004, p. 204). Another argument is that institutional racism, not geographical factors, is the reason for the overrepresentation of Blacks on death row statistics. That is, Blacks who commit murder are more likely than their White counterparts to be sentenced to death because of the low representation of Black people in key positions within the criminal jus- tice system, such as prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. An alternative explanation is that prosecutors, particularly in wealthy areas, are more likely to seek the death penalty when the offender is Black and the victim is White than when it is the opposite.

A research study conducted by Professor David C. Baldus and his colleagues in 1983 regarding the use of the death penalty in Georgia showed that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70% of cases involving Black defendants and White victims but only in 19% of the cases involving White defendants and Black victims. The study also showed that Black defendants in Georgia were more likely to receive the death penalty when they kill a White person than when they kill a Black person (Baldus, Pulaski, & Woodworth, 1983). In 1986, Warren McCleskey, a Black man, was convicted of murdering a White police officer from Georgia and sentenced to death. His attorneys argued that McCleskey’s death sentence reflects the racist application of the death penalty in Georgia documented in Pro- fessor Baldus’ 1983 study. In McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the Supreme Court concluded that the Baldus study was flawed and that McCleskey did not show evidence that the jurors who sentenced him to death purposely discriminated against him because of his race.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 43 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.3 Impact of Incarceration on Society CHAPTER 2

Women and Incarceration

Women represent about 6.8% of all prison inmates. However, in recent years, the number of women in prison has increased at a faster pace than their male counterparts (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). Compared to men, women in prison are less likely to be in prison for a violent offense and more likely to be in prison for a property crimes and drug offenses

2.3 Impact of Incarceration on Society

The high incarceration rate of the United States has been the result of several fac-tors associated with the War on Drugs and violence. For instance, in response to the increasing drug-related violence during the 1980s, the federal government adopted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which eliminated and restricted parole release at the federal level. Defendants sentenced for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987, were required to serve determinate terms under the sentencing guidelines and became ineligible for parole consideration (Fulwood, Mitchell, & Simpson, 2003). By 1989, 16 states had abolished or restricted the discretion of the state parole board to release inmates, and 4 states abolished parole for certain violent offenders (Hughes, Wilson, & Beck, 2001).

Other factors that contributed to the increase in the incarcerated population include the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences, Three Strikes and You’re Out laws, and truth in sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences eliminate the discretion of the judges to impose a sentence that in their view better fits the offense or the characteristics of the offender. Two types of mandatory laws are Three-Strikes sentences, which in most cases make a third, serious felony offense punishable with life in prison, and truth in sentencing, which requires that the inmate serve at least 85% of the prison term. These sentencing laws have been primarily intended to control drug offenders and violent offenders. The main social impact of these laws has been to increase the number of women and minority offenders incarcerated.

Web Field Trip: Three Strikes and You’re Out Although Three Strikes and You’re Out legislation was meant to keep “career criminals who rape women, molest children, and commit murder behind bars where they belong,” the scope of its cover- age is much wider. The bill has led to several years of automatic life sentences for repeat offenders, many of them nonviolent and capable of reform. After almost 2 decades, a case is being made for alterations to the law, which would exclude petty theft and minor drug charges from the “serious crime” definition that can earn an offender life. With the extreme overcrowding of prisons and the financial burden of these sentences, changes to Three Strikes have become necessary.

Go to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23strikes-t.html?pagewanted=all and read about the successes and problems in California with the Three Strikes and You’re Out legislation, as well as how attempts at reform are being made.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Does Three Strikes need to be revised or eliminated? 2. How could this law be revised without creating loopholes for dangerous criminals?

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 44 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.3 Impact of Incarceration on Society CHAPTER 2

than men (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). Overall, sentences levied on women tend to be shorter than those received by men (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Deschenes, Owen, & Crow, 2007). The differences in sentences and time served between male and female offenders may reflect differences in their respective criminal histories, particularly men having more serious criminal convictions than women (Sarnikar, Sorensen, & Oaxaca, 2007).

Incarcerated Mothers and Their Children Women in prison have to cope with the emotional and psychological effects of being sepa- rated from their dependent children who lived with them before their incarceration. From 1991 to 2007, the number of mothers in prison increased from 29,500 to 65,600, and the number of fathers increased from 423,000 to 744,200 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). In 2007 there were 1,706,600 children with a parent in prison, and more than half of those children were cared for by their grandparents. Children whose mothers are in prison are more likely to be in the foster care system than children whose fathers are incarcerated (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).

Women released from prison face several challenges in their attempt to be reunited with their children. For many of them, finding a job and housing prevent them from having immediate access to their children and increase the risk of reoffending. Other released inmates have to face the pressure of paying bills that accumulated while they were incar- cerated in addition to legal fees and, in some cases, restitution. Further, they face the challenge of separating their children from those parental figures (e.g., grandparents, uncles, aunts, and foster parents) who took care of them while they were incarcerated (Christian, 2009). In these instances, the renewed presence of the released mother into the life of the children and their caretakers may become a source of stress and conflict that can lead to domestic violence. As discussed later, there are several correctional programs intended to facilitate the reintegration of incarcerated mothers into the community and their reunification with their children.

There are several obstacles to an inmate’s ability to have contact with her children. For example, some correctional institutions require those who bring the children to visit to produce birth certificates documenting that the prisoner is the biological parent. In other instances, the inmate is housed in prisons located far from where their children live. In many states, all female inmates are housed in one facility, which can require long hours of driving to bring the children to visit their mothers. In addition, the high cost for collect calls from prison makes it difficult for them to stay in contact with their relatives and children.

Pregnant and Sexually Abused Inmates About 4% of women in state prisons and 3% of women in federal prisons were pregnant at the time of incarceration (Maruschak, 2008). In recent years, the admission of pregnant women to prison has given rise to a number of lawsuits against correctional facilities, seeking to improve services and living conditions for pregnant inmates (Parker, 2004). Lawsuits have also been filed to prevent the practice of shackling pregnant women during transportation to the hospital and during delivery. In 2011, a Tennessee jury awarded $200,000 to Juana Villegas in a civil case in which she alleged that her rights were violated when she was shackled during labor and again during her postpartum recovery (Castillo, 2011).

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 45 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.3 Impact of Incarceration on Society CHAPTER 2

The conditions of women in prison are aggravated by their exposure to sexual abuse and harassment by prison staff (Buchanan, 2007). Consistent with the feminist perspective discussed in Chapter 1, the unequal power between offi- cers and prison inmates makes female inmates highly vulner- able to abuse by correctional staff, particularly male officers. The Civil Rights of Institu- tionalized Persons Act of 1980 and state laws protect women in prisons against sexual mis- conduct by correctional staff. Sexual misconduct includes sexual assault, sexual abuse,

sexual harassment, sexual contact, obscene language, and communication of a romantic or sexual nature. Misconduct by staff also includes observing inmates of the opposite sex naked for a longer time than necessary for security purposes (Layman, McCampbell, & Moss, 2000). Measuring the magnitude of correctional sexual abuse is difficult because most inmates do not report misconduct for fear of retaliation. In some instances, the abuse becomes evident when the inmate is diagnosed with having a sexually transmitted dis- ease or becomes pregnant while incarcerated.

Shaul Schwarz/Getty Images

Some prisons allow pregnant women who deliver their babies while incarcerated to keep their infants with them for a set amount of time.

Case Study: Prison, Rape, and Pregnancy Anastacio “Ted” Gallardo was a vocational plumbing instructor at the only female prison in Kansas, the Topeka Correctional Facility, until he was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for sexually assault- ing an inmate. Tracy Keith was one of Gallardo’s plumbing students who had been coerced into a sexual encounter with the instructor. Once the meeting was underway, Keith changed her mind, but Gallardo forced her to have intercourse. The sexual assault resulted in pregnancy. When Gallardo learned Keith was pregnant he smuggled morning-after pills and forced her to take them, but they failed to terminate the pregnancy. He then solicited an inmate to stomp on Keith’s stomach to induce a spontaneous miscarriage, which also failed. A rape charge was dismissed against Anastacio Gallardo in exchange for a guilty plea to unlawful sexual relations and two counts of trafficking contraband in a correctional facility. For a complete report visit http://cjonline.com/news/state/2009-10-03/ womens_prison_sex_trade

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Was the sentence Gallardo received proportional to the crime he committed? Why? 2. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states that female

prisoners should be attended and supervised only by female officers and that male staff, such as doctors and teachers who provide professional services in female facilities, should always be accompanied by female officers. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 46 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.3 Impact of Incarceration on Society CHAPTER 2

Social Class and Incarceration

The incarcerated population shows social class differences in terms of the inmates’ levels of education, occupation, income, and wealth. In terms of education, more than half of all prisoners had not completed high school at the time of their incarceration. However, the number of inmates with less than a high school education is higher for Black and Hispanic inmates than for White inmates. In addition, the majority of the inmates without a high school diploma or GED had a reported learning disability (Harlow, 2003).

Following the strain theory discussed in Chapter 1, researchers have shown that people living in poor neighborhoods are predisposed to engage in criminal activities for eco- nomic survival or to cope with everyday life stress (Evans, Wells, & Moch, 2003; Free- man, 1996). Also, high unemployment rates in poor areas increase the risk of arrest and incarceration, and contact with the criminal justice system increases subsequent joblessness (Sutton, 2004).

Research shows that low-income people are overrepresented in criminal justice statistics and the correctional population (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, Yeung, & Smith, 1998). As dis- cussed previously, poor and indigent offenders often have to rely on public defenders who are underfunded and overburdened (Stuntz, 1997; Hoffman, Rubin, & Shepherd, 2005). Indeed, a study found that “on average public defenders clients suffer in excess of three years more incarceration than private defense clients, even controlling for the seri- ousness of the charges” (Hoffman, Rubin, & Shepherd, 2005, p. 249).

The conditions for prisoners are aggravated by the collateral consequences of their crimi- nal convictions, that is, the additional penalties resulting from having a criminal record. In many instances, released inmates become ineligible or have restricted access to public housing, welfare, and student loans. They may also become ineligible for jury service and lose their right to vote (Human Rights Watch, 2004; Petersilia, 2000; Balci & Krauss, 2006). The impact of incarceration and its collateral consequences seem to have been more pro- nounced among members of minority groups.

Race, Ethnicity, and Incarceration

Social scientists define race as socially constructed categories of people who share cer- tain physical characteristics considered important for social, economic, and political purposes. By contrast, ethnicity refers to the cultural heritage shared by a group of peo- ple, including ancestry, language, or religion (Macionis, 2008). According to the United States Census Bureau, 72.4% (231,040,398) of the population is classified as White-alone, 13.6% is Black or African American (42,020,743), 16.3% is Hispanic or Latino (15,171,776), 3.6% is Asian (10,171,820), and .13% is Pacific Islander (378,782) (United States Census Bureau, 2010a). Relative to their representation within the general population, the statis- tics on incarceration show a significant disproportion of Blacks and Hispanics in prison. In 2010, of the approximately 1,446,000 state and federal inmate population, 40.6% was Black, and 24.0% was Hispanic (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). Also, the incarcera- tion rates for Black and Hispanic males are 4,749 and 1,822 per 100,000 U.S. population, respectively, compared to 708 for Whites. The incarceration rates for Black and Hispanic women show a similar pattern, 333 and 142, respectively, compared to 91 White female inmates per 100,000 residents (West, 2010).

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 47 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.3 Impact of Incarceration on Society CHAPTER 2

The increase in the number of minority people incarcerated is related to the factors explained in the previous section, namely, the implementation of tougher criminal laws and policies related to the War on Drugs and violence during the 1980s. However, two of the most significant policies that significantly affected minority offenders were the Com- prehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which established the federal sentencing guide- lines, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created different mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack and powder cocaine. The federal sentencing guidelines were intended to bring uniformity to the sentences imposed on felony offenses across the coun- try by considering the severity of the crime and the criminal history of the offender. In other words, convicted offenders with similar criminal histories should receive similar sentences depending on the severity of the offense.

Sentencing Guidelines and Race A 1993 comprehensive study of the impact of the federal sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimum sentences showed that before their implementation, White, Black, and Hispanic offenders received similar sentences in federal district courts (McDonald & Carlson, 1993). The study revealed that after the implementation of the federal sen- tencing guidelines, the average sentences imposed on Black offenders were 21 months longer than those imposed on White offenders for similar offenses. Because of this dis- parity and other problems, in United States v. Booker (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the sentencing guidelines is not mandatory, but advisory. According to the Depart- ment of Justice (2001), a year after the Booker deci- sion, the number of sentences imposed within the Guidelines dropped, and the sentencing disparity between White and Black convicted offenders decreased.

Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, posses- sion of five grams of crack-cocaine carried the same 5-year prison term as 500 grams of powder cocaine. This policy had a significant negative impact on minority communities where cheap crack-cocaine was readily available (Bosworth, 2010). In response to the discriminatory effect of the policy, on August 3, 2010, the federal govern- ment approved the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the powder cocaine-crack dispar- ity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. The act also elimi- nated mandatory minimum prison sentences for first-time possession of crack cocaine. On June 30, 2011, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to retroactively apply the act to incarcerated offenders whose drug convictions did not involve violence. The Commission estimated that 16,148 drug-convicted inmates (out of 18,184 consid- ered) qualified for early release, 86% of which are

Scott T. Baxter/Getty Images

Sentences imposed on Black offenders were found to be significantly longer than those imposed on White offenders after the implementation of the federal sentencing guidelines, leading the Supreme Court to rule that the use of these guidelines is advisable but not mandatory.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 48 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

African Americans (United States Sentencing Commission, 2011). Many of those released inmates will return to communities affected by high unemployment, family disruptions, and crime (Petersilia, 2007; Cullen, 2007; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007).

2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society

Despite Robert Martinson’s 1974 pessimistic evaluation of rehabilitation and rein-tegration treatment, researchers have continued their efforts in developing effec-tive approaches to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into society. Researchers had shown that some of the programs Martinson and his colleagues evaluated did not work because they were based on questionable rehabilitation approaches such as psycho- analysis, drama therapy, acupuncture, and self-esteem building (Latessa, Cullen, & Gen- dreau, 2002). Hence, researchers concentrated their attention to identifying rehabilitation programs and treatment approaches that would effectively assist in the reintegration of prison inmates and offenders who are under community corrections supervision (Gen- dreau & Ross, 1987; Prendergast, Angling, & Wellisch, 1995; Whitehead & Lab, 1989).

Community corrections are nonincarceration sanctions imposed by a sentencing judge or parole board on adult or juvenile offenders. In general, probation service agencies and parole boards manage and coordinate community correction programs. Offenders under community corrections may be required to comply with a set of regulations such as com-

pleting a high school education or GED program, participating in rehabilitation programs, sub- mitting to random drug tests, obtaining and maintaining a job, and paying restitution. Studies indicate that recidivism can be reduced up to 20% when com- munity support, supervision, and rehabilitation services are offered simultaneously (Peter- silia, 2007). Effective rehabili- tation programs target higher risk cases and use treatment techniques that address clients’ dynamic criminogenic needs, that is, those risk factors that increase the likelihood for reof- fending such as low self-esteem,

low school performance, negative peer-group influence, substance abuse, and mental health problems (Andrews et al., 1990; Izzo & Ross, 1990; Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005). Offenders who have been exposed to these crimino- genic factors, particularly mental health problems, tend to have longer criminal histories than those without mental problems (Ditton & Wilson, 1999).

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Many prisons offer vocational training with the goal of reducing recidivism by providing inmates with an employable skill.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 49 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

Rehabilitation and Vocational Education

Traditionally, correctional experts have seen vocational education as an important reha- bilitative and reintegrative tool. Studies show that vocational education increases the chances of successful reintegration of offenders within the community and reduces recidi- vism (Gaes, Flanagan, Motuik, & Stewart, 1999). Currently, about a third of all inmates participate in vocational educational training during their stay in prison, and there is a high demand for vocational programs in male and female prisons (La Vigne, Kachnowski, Travis, Naser, & Visher, 2003; Travis, Keegan, & Cadora, 2003).

Cognitive Therapy and Therapeutic Community

In addition to vocational education, many prisons offer cognitive and behavioral therapy. Unlike the psychoanalytical perspective discussed in Chapter 1, cognitive- behavioral therapy emphasizes the importance of assisting patients in developing problem-solving and social skills through role playing and conflict resolution exercises (Prendergast, Angling, & Wellisch, 1995). Some of these techniques have been incor- porated into a prison model known as therapeutic community. Offenders assigned to a therapeutic community live together in an area separated from the general prison population. In this community, members confront each other ’s negative behavior and attitudes and establish an open, trusting, and safe environment (Eliason, 2006). The length of stay ranges from 15 to 24 months (Messina, Wish, & Nemes, 2000). As dis- cussed later, the use of the therapeutic community model in women prisons has become very controversial due to participants’ allegations of abuse.

The cognitive behavioral therapy model has been well received by criminal justice experts (Antonowicz, 2005). However, evaluations of these programs have not shown conclusive evidence that they are effective in reducing reoffending. As discussed before, even if they have learned new attitudes and behaviors, most offenders return to the impoverished communities where they lived prior to being incarcerated and find themselves without a job, transportation, and social support (Hollin et al., 2008; McGuire, 2005; Petersilia, 2000). As a result, state correctional agencies and the federal government have developed reinte- gration or reentry programs to facilitate the offender’s transition from prison or treatment to the community.

Reintegration, Halfway Houses, Work Release, and Furlough

One of the oldest reintegrative programs is the halfway house. These are residential treatment and control places where released inmates and probationers can find shelter, support, and enough freedom to find employment or education. For some inmates and probationers a halfway house may be the only available and affordable place to live. While staying at a halfway house, the staff can monitor the behavior of the residents to make sure they comply with parole or probation conditions such as curfew, drug tests, employment, paying restitution, and receiving drug treatment (Shilton, 2005).

In 2008 the federal government approved the Second Chance Act, which made available federal grants to state governments and nonprofit organizations for reentry programs for released inmates (Reentry Policy Council, 2005). Currently, the Federal Bureau of Prisons

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 50 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

(FBOP) runs 181 residential reentry agencies—its term for halfway houses—to provide reintegration services to federal offenders across the country (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011). The federal government and state correctional agencies have also incorporated work release programs, which allow inmates to work outside the prison and return to prison after work, and furlough programs, which allow inmates to attend school or spend time with their families for a few hours or overnight.

Reintegration Through Reentry Courts

Public concerns with the problems facing offenders released to the community have led to the development of reentry courts. Reentry courts consist of a team of judges, pros- ecutors, and community corrections officials who monitor the reintegration progress of released prison inmates. As of 2005, there were about 15 reentry courts in the United States. The main goals of the reentry courts are to promote the reintegration of released inmates and reducing recidivism. Reentry courts are based on the assumptions that released inmates need a source of structure in their lives and that the authority of a judge can serve as an effective agent of change (Wolf, 2011; Reentry Policy Council, 2005). In general, reentry courts consist of regular meetings led by judges, district attorneys, case managers, and correctional officers to monitor the behavior and progress of the released offenders. Being a relatively new concept, reentry courts have not been fully evaluated, although there are some indications that they can help in reducing the recidivism of the participants (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2011; Hamilton, 2010).

Women, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration A 1998 study of women in state prisons revealed that about half of the female inmates had been under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both when they committed the offense for which they were incarcerated. Women were also more likely to have been on probation and under substance abuse treatment at the time they committed their offense than male inmates (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). In 2005, the majority of the women in prisons and jails had a mental health problem and a recent history of taking medication for mental prob- lems (James & Glaze, 2006). Some of the most common mental health problems reported by male and female inmates include depression, persistent anger, and sleeping disorders (Beck & Maruschak, 2001).

Female prisons and community-based correctional programs offer a wide range of pro- grams to help violent offenders. One of the most popular programs is anger management therapy. Power and Control Wheel for Incarcerated Populations (PCWIP) is a program intended to assist female violent offenders in understanding and identifying the relation- ship between power, control, different forms of abuse, and violence. The Equality Wheel program teaches participants how to establish healthy nonviolent relationships with spouses and partners (Muscat, 2008). Other programs such as Reasoning and Rehabilita- tion, Think First, and Cognitive Self-Change help inmates identify patterns of thinking that lead them to engage in drug use, violence, and antisocial behavior. The basic princi- ples of these programs have been incorporated into the therapeutic community currently in place in many female prisons.

Female inmates participating in therapeutic communities have a chance to address issues related to substance abuse, psychological and educational needs, and antisocial behavior

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 51 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

For many women in prison, developing healthy relationships with their kids represents a main goal in their lives. To address this need, many states have implemented correctional programs that keep incarcerated mothers in contact with their children. One of those pro- grams is the prison nurseries, which allow nonviolent incarcerated mothers to parent their infant for a determined period of time within a special housing unit within the prison (Women’s Prison Association, 2009). As of 2009, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, New York, South Dakota, and Washington had nursery programs; and California and West Virginia were in the process of developing prison nursery programs. Another program is Girls Scouts Beyond Bars (GSBB), which coordinates visits between Scouts and their incarcerated mothers. The GSBB program was established in 1992 to strengthen the mother–daughter relationship and reduce the likelihood of reunification problems follow- ing the mothers’ release (Girl Scouts of the USA, 2008). A 3-year evaluation of the program indicates that it is effective in strengthening the relationships between daughters and their incarcerated mothers (Girl Scouts of the USA, 2008).

Social Class, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration While in prison or under community supervision, offenders may benefit from access to rehabilitation and reintegration services. However, the long-term benefits of rehabilita- tion and treatment for the offenders tend to diminish as they struggle to stay away from drugs and criminal activities after they have been released from prison or have completed

simultaneously. Recent evaluations of female therapeutic communities in prison indicate that women who participate in therapeutic community treatment have reduced recidi- vism, are more successful while on parole, and are more likely to obtain and maintain employment (Simpson & Knight, 2001; Messina & Prendergast, 2001). However, Michele J. Eliason, an expert in substance abuse treatment, warns us that the confrontational model of the therapeutic community could be detrimental for recovery when peer members use it to retaliate against or intimidate inmates who show negative attitudes and behavior (Eliason, 2006).

Web Field Trip: A Therapeutic Community for Women in Prison Visit the link http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/playing-the-game-behind-the-fences-at-the-idaho- womens-correctional-centers-therapeutic-community/Content?oid=2585685 to learn about the operation of a therapeutic method known as “the game.” The method consists of inmates sitting in a circle and confronting each other regarding their behavior and attitudes. Watch the embedded video to have a better understanding of the “game” and the allegations of cruel and unusual punishment.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What do you think about the allegation that the “game” subjects inmates to cruel and unusual

punishment? Do you see anything wrong with this method? 2. Do you think that the therapeutic community model has any merits and benefits? How would

you make the model more effective and less controversial?

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 52 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

community supervision. For instance, a follow-up study of 690 released prison inmates who graduated from a therapeutic community while incarcerated showed that more than half had been rearrested, and the majority had relapsed to drug use after 5 years of completion (Inciardi, Martin, & Butzin, 2004). Male drug abusers who have low educa- tion, who are unemployed, and who live independently are more prone to relapse than their counterparts (Xie, McHugo, Fox, & Drake, 2005). Welfare recipients are more likely than nonrecipients to report using illegal drugs and to experience depression and anxiety (Jayakody, Danziger, Seefeldt, & Pollack, 2000).

Currently the largest federally funded program to assist alcohol and substance abusers is Access to Recovery (ATR), a grant-based program under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2010). The annual amount of each grant ranges from $2 million to $4 million depending on the funds available and the performance of the programs. In some of the states receiving ATR funds the government provides vouchers to recovering alcohol and drug users leaving jails and prisons, and to military personnel to get treatment by certified treatment programs. To reduce the effect of stigmatization and labeling, after pleading guilty to their felony charge, the offenders receive a deferred sen- tence, meaning that the sentence is postponed if they agree to participate in the treatment. If participants complete the program, their guilty plea is withdrawn and the charges are dismissed, leaving the offender without a criminal record (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse [NCASA], 2003). A 5-year evaluation of the program found that it reduces the level of rearrest and reconviction of the participants.

Drug Courts The most recent War on Drugs has its roots in the context of the civil and racial unrest of the 1960s. Politicians responded by enacting more punitive drug laws, and in 1971, President Richard Nixon declared an institutional War on Drugs. Throughout the 1970s, state and federal law enforcement agencies increased their efforts to control the supply, distribution, and use of illegal drugs. Arrests for drug crimes thus increased sharply in the 1980s and 1990s, and drug offenders often faced stiff mandatory minimum sentences. While overall state prison populations grew by an average of 8% each year between 1980 and 1996, the population of drug offenders in state prisons grew by more than 16% annu- ally (Western & Petitt, 2008). In 1986, President Reagan signed a law appropriating $1.7 billion to fight the “drug war.” The bill created mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. These mandatory sentences promoted racial disparities in the prison population because of the differences in sentencing for offenses related to crack and powder cocaine. Possession of the much cheaper drug crack resulted in a harsher sentence, penalizing its lower-income users.

In 1980, 581,000 people were arrested for drug crimes, and by 2009, the number had almost tripled to 1,663,000 people. In 1980, about 41,000 were in prison or jail for drug crimes, and by 2003, that number neared 500,000 people (Mauer & King, 2007). Racial dispari- ties among those arrested for drug offenses are carried over into racial disparities among those sentenced to prison and jail. As a result of the laws that constitute the War on Drugs, today Black and Hispanic-Latino people make up 65% of drug offenders in state prisons (West & Sabol, 2010). Figure 2.2 illustrates how the adult correctional populations grew in the United States between 1980 and 2009. The large increase in the number of people incarcerated and on probation and parole was driven in large part by drug offenses.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 53 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.2: Increase in United States correctional population, 1980–2009

Based on data taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys http://www.bjs.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm

The significant growth of the United States correctional population over the last 30 years is largely due to the increased number of drug offenses.

The War on Drugs of recent decades has primarily impacted communities of color, as Blacks and Hispanics-Latinos are the majority of those arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses. Impoverished, inner-city neighborhoods bear the double-burden of the arrests of many of their residents and the burden of reintegrating them when they return from prison (Rose & Clear, 2003). People convicted of felony crimes also face collateral con- sequences, including ineligibility for public benefits, public housing, student loans, and many jobs. These consequences create added difficulties for people trying to establish social and economic stability after release from incarceration. As 700,000 people reenter society each year, these collateral consequences affect their families and their communities (Pinard, 2010).

A rehabilitation and reintegration program born out of the War on Drugs is drug court pro- grams, specialized courts that handle offenders who have substance abuse problems. The first drug court was established in Dade County, Miami, in 1989, and currently there are about 2,633 programs across the country (National Association of Drug Court Programs, 2011). An evaluation of the drug court programs found that they can reduce recidivism by approximately 10 to 15% (Marlowe, 2010) and are less expensive than incarceration (National Institute of Justice, 2011). Drug courts tend to be more beneficial for low-income and high- risk young offenders who have been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorders, and those who are methamphetamine users (Franco, 2010; Marlowe, 2010; Shaffer, 2006).

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

1980 1988 1996 2004 2009

Probation

Prison

Parole

Jail

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 54 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

Race, Ethnicity, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration Overall, Black and Hispanic inmates in state and federal prisons and on probation are half as likely to report a mental illness, and they are less likely to have received treatment during their incarceration (Ditton, 1999). In general, minority substance abusers tend to have higher program dropout rates and poorer compliance in substance abuse treatment (National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2009) than Whites. The low success rate of minorities in their drug abuse treatment suggests that the traditional treatment programs (e.g., case management, counseling, and service referrals) may not meet the treatment needs of ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities tend to respond better to treatment methods such as motivational enhancement therapy (MET). MET is a client-centered approach that consists of building motivation and commitment for change through empathy toward the client, raising the client’s awareness of behavior and beliefs, avoiding confrontations, and helping the client in developing self-confidence. MET-based treatment programs seem to improve the retention of minority participants in treatment (Montgomery, Burlew, Kosin- ski, & Forcehimes, 2011; Winhusen et al., 2008).

During incarceration, minority inmates are more likely than White inmates to partici- pate in education and vocational programs (Harlow, 2003). Despite their involvement in prison educational and treatment programs, the rearrest and reconviction of state-released inmates is higher for Blacks than for Whites. Minorities released from prison were more likely to be rearrested within 3 years after their release and to be returned to prison than White inmates (Langan & Levin, 2002). Once released, the majority of the inmates tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods characterized by high levels of poverty, unemploy- ment, crime, and homelessness, factors highly associated with recidivism (La Vinge et al., 2003; Travis, Keegan, & Cadora, 2003; Reentry Policy Council, 2005).

Under the release conditions just described, providing transitional housing to released inmates can be a challenge, particularly when people within the community are reluctant to accept the presence of halfway houses in their neighborhoods. The opposition of the community to using vacant buildings as halfway houses is based on the perception that their residents threaten the safety of the community, and they decrease the property value of the surrounding area. Proponents of halfway houses argue that they can be beneficial to the community because the housing personnel monitor the movement and behavior of the residents through curfews and employment requirements. Halfway houses may also benefit the immediate community because they attract pro-social elements such as police officers, correctional officers, and community leaders who show concern for the safety of the community (Shilton, 2003).

As discussed throughout this chapter, philosophies of punishment shape the way soci- ety perceives and treats offenders. Moreover, our policies of punishment reflect public fear of crime and fear of those individuals socially defined as dangerous. Influenced by these factors, legislators and correctional experts continue their search for less expensive alternatives to incarceration and more efficient ways of reintegrating offenders into the community while maintaining public safety.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 55 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

Using the Sociological Lens: The Death Penalty and Deterrence

How can we determine if the death penalty deters crime?

Events in April 2012 offer a telling glimpse into the fragmented, often conflicted state of the death penalty in the United States. On April 18, Ohio executed convicted murderer Mark Wiles by lethal injection. Two days later, the state of Delaware doled out the same punishment to convicted killer Shannon M. Johnson. Five days after these executions, however, on April 25, Connecticut became the 17th state in the nation to repeal the death penalty. “It is a moment for sober reflection, not celebration,” wrote Governor Dannel Malloy as he signed legislation that made life in prison without parole the highest form of punishment in his state (quoted in Ariosto, 2012).

Connecticut outlawed the death penalty because officials there were not convinced it deterred would-be criminals from committing crime. Executions continued in Ohio, Delaware, and other states, however, because officials elsewhere are convinced it does. Indeed, the death pen- alty’s deterrent effect has been the focus of numerous studies that have churned out opposing con- clusions on the issue since the death penalty was reinstated nationally in 1976.

To settle the matter once and for all, in April 2012—sandwiched between the Wiles and Johnson executions—the National Research Council’s Committee of Deterrence and the Death Penalty (which advises the federal government) reviewed deterrence studies on both sides of the issue. In an unex- pected twist, they came to a surprising conclusion—everyone might be wrong.

The committee investigated every existing study on the issue and concluded that all are too seriously flawed to be taken into consideration by judges, policy makers, and other influential individuals. “Research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative,” wrote the committee. “Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform delib- erations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide . . . [and] should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 2). Saying they were “disappointed” by their findings, the committee’s conclusion essentially wiped clean the slate of evidence on this historic point of debate. “Nothing is known about how poten- tial murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment,” said committee Chairman Daniel Nagin (quoted in Castellanos, 2012, para. 8).

Despite the committee’s historic and controversial conclusion, death penalty opponents and advo- cates—like the ones represented in the following perspectives—continue to promote and deny the death penalty’s deterrent effect.

The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

Sentencing convicted murderers to death deters crime, argues Chris DeSanctis in the following perspective. DeSanctis argues the death penalty offers two kinds of deterrents. One involves self- preservation: When people know they will pay for their crime with their own life, he says, they will be less inclined to act criminally. The other way in which the death penalty serves as a deterrent is by perma- nently incapacitating people who have already killed. Convicted murderers sometimes kill again—other inmates on death row, police officers who work in prisons, or innocent members of the (continued)

Alex Wong/Getty Images

While some view the death penalty as a way to prevent future crimes, others view it as state-condoned murder.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 56 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Section 2.4 Impact of Rehabilitation and Reintegration on Society CHAPTER 2

Using the Sociological Lens: The Death Penalty and Deterrence (continued) public should they be released or escape from prison (Jackson, 2009). DeSanctis says the only way to make sure a murderer can never kill again is to take away his ability to do so permanently.

Multiple studies have linked the death penalty with criminal deterrence. Some have shown that each execution prevents 3 murders, while others have calculated that 18 lives are saved for every mur- derer who is executed (Liptak, 2007). DeSanctis says the death penalty is to thank for saving these and countless other lives.

Chris DeSanctis, “Can Executing Murderers Save Lives?” American Thinker, February 5, 2011. http:// www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/can_executing_murderers_save_l.html

The Myth of Deterrence

Few issues are as polarizing for Americans as capital punishment. The act of executing a person for committing a horrible crime strikes some as essentially just, and others as pointless and uncivilized. As of May 2012, 17 American states had abolished the death penalty: Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The death penalty is typically reserved for the worst of all crimes, and one of its rationales is that people can be deterred from committing crime if they know they will pay for it with their own life. In the following perspective, the American Civil Liberties Union argues the death penalty cannot pos- sibly be a deterrent to crime. For one, they say, deterrents only work when punishments are enacted swiftly—but most capitally convicted inmates sit on death row for years, even decades. Second, crimes that are not premeditated cannot be deterred by the death penalty; deterrence would mean that a criminal would think about the consequences of his action prior to committing murder, but crimes of passion—as are many murders—are not thought out beforehand. Third, criminals may be completely unaware of death penalty laws in their state. For these reasons and more, the ACLU argues the death penalty has no deterrent effect and should be abolished for this and other reasons.

American Civil Liberties Union, “The Case Against the Death Penalty,” 2011, https://www.aclu.org/ capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. To what extent do you think the death penalty’s cost should be factored into states’ decisions to retain it?

3. DeSanctis argues the only way to make sure convicted murderers never kill again is to execute them. What do you think? Is the death penalty the best way to incapacitate society’s worst criminals? Why or why not?

4. After reading both of the above perspectives, what deterrent effect do you think the death penalty has on crime? Explain your position, and cite evidence you read that swayed you.

5. Which philosophy of punishment does the death penalty most embody? Of all the philoso- phies of punishment you read about in Chapter 2, which do you think is most effective? Why?

6. Do you think some types of would-be criminals would be more likely than others to be deterred

by the death penalty? If so, what defining characteristics might they have? 7. Families of murder victims both oppose and support the death penalty. Supporters claim that

executing their loved one’s murderer is the only way to exact justice; opponents claim that kill- ing on top of killing sullies their loved one’s memory. If you were to lose a loved one to a vicious crime, would you want their killer executed? Why or why not?

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 57 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

Chapter Summary

This chapter focused on different philosophies of punishment and how they guide correctional practices. Punishment is the use of a penalty to inflict pain on those who violate the criminal law. Each state and the federal government has a depart- ment of corrections in charge of the administration of the punishment imposed by the court system to accused and convicted offenders. Punishment is based on different phi- losophies including retribution (eye-for-an-eye), incapacitation (e.g., incarceration), reha- bilitation (treatment), reintegration, and deterrence. These philosophies contain ideas that define social attitudes toward the offender, the seriousness of the crime, and the appropri- ate punishment for the crime. The goal of retribution is to make the offender pay for the harm done to the victim and society. The goal of incapacitation is to separate offenders from society as a way of protecting the public. The most visible form of incapacitation is incarceration. Rehabilitation is intended to assist the offender in becoming a law-abiding citizen, and it is frequently used for people under community-based supervision such as probation and parole. The goal of reintegration is to prepare offenders to become part of society and to prepare society to accept ex-offenders. Deterrence may have multiple goals depending on the intended target. Punishment based on general deterrence is intended to discourage potential offenders from engaging in criminal activities. If the punishment is intended to discourage an offender from reoffending, then the punishment serves a specific deterrence goal.

Evidence exists that such things as the offender ’s race, ethnicity, social class, and gen- der may affect the decision to execute, incarcerate, or keep the offender in the commu- nity under correctional supervision. For instance, women tend to serve shorter prison sentences than men, and they are also more likely than male offenders to report men- tal problems and substance abuse associated with their criminality. Poor offenders, many of whom are members of minority groups, tend to serve longer prison sentences than their counterparts and to reoffend after completion of probation or being released from prison.

Key Terms

anger management therapy A treatment program aimed at teaching violent offend- ers the necessary skills to control their anger.

cognitive-behavioral therapy A form of treatment that emphasizes the impor- tance of assisting patients in developing problem-solving and social and emotional skills.

collateral consequences Additional pen- alties resulting from criminal convictions such as ineligibility or restricted access to public housing, welfare, and student loans, exclusion from jury duty, and losing the right to vote.

community corrections Nonincarcera- tion sanctions imposed by a sentencing judge or parole board on adult or juvenile offenders.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 58 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

criminogenic needs Risk factors that increase the likelihood for reoffending such as low self-esteem, negative peer- group influence, mental health problems, low school performance, and substance abuse.

dangerization A view that assumes society can be protected by predicting and controlling the risk and danger that some individuals pose to society.

deterrence A philosophy of punishment that views penalties as tools to discourage and stop by fear the negative conduct of people.

disproportionality When a group of peo- ple are overrepresented in a given statistic compared to their number in the general population.

drug court A specialized court that han- dles offenders who have substance abuse problems.

forfeiture Confiscation by the government of any assets resulting from a crime (e.g., money, property) or used for the com- mission of a crime (e.g., vehicles, houses, businesses).

furlough programs Prison programs that allow inmates to attend school or spend time with their families for a few hours or overnight.

general deterrence When penalties are imposed to discourage potential offenders from committing crimes.

graduated sanctions A set of penalties organized from least to most restrictive; used by correctional officers to control the behavior of offenders.

halfway house Residential treatment and control places where released inmates and probationers can find shelter, support, and enough freedom to find employment or education.

incapacitation Any sentence that restricts the physical capacity of offenders to com- mit crimes.

intermediate sanctions A set of penal- ties that are not as severe as incarceration but that are stricter than standard proba- tion. Intermediate sanctions include house arrest, electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol testing, curfews, boot camps, and intensive probation supervision.

motivational enhancement therapy (MET) A client-centered approach that consists of building motivation and com- mitment for change through empathy toward the client, raising client’s aware- ness of behavior and beliefs, avoiding confrontations, and helping the client in developing self-confidence.

proportionality When the punishment imposed by the court to the offender cor- responds to the seriousness of the offense and what in the opinion of the court should be done to protect the public.

punishment The use of a penalty to inflict pain on those who violate the criminal law.

recidivism Repeating an illegal behavior after having been punished or treated.

reentry court A team of judges, prosecu- tors, and community corrections officials who monitor the reintegration progress of released prison inmates.

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 59 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

rehabilitation A philosophy of punish- ment that assumes it is possible to restore an offender to a useful and functional mental and social capacity.

reintegration A philosophy that empha- sizes the capacity of offenders to be part of the community upon release from prison or while participating in community supervision.

restitution A penalty that forces offenders to reimburse the victims and society for the damages, expenses, and losses result- ing from their crimes.

retribution A backward-looking philoso- phy based on the principle that offenders should pay for the harm they have caused and that the penalty imposed should be proportional to the offense.

sexual misconduct Includes sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual contact, obscene language, and com- munication of romantic or sexual nature.

specific deterrence When penalties are imposed to discourage a particular person from reoffending.

therapeutic community A treatment pro- gram under which offenders are assigned to live together in an area separated from the general prison population where they are exposed to different cognitive- behavioral therapies to learn pro-social attitudes and behavior. The community itself becomes the therapist, which facili- tates healthy confrontation between the participants to correct antisocial attitudes and behavior.

utilitarian view A view of punishment according to which the utility of punish- ment should be determined by its capac- ity to deter actual and potential criminals from harming society.

work release programs Prison and jail programs that allow inmates to work out- side the prison and return to prison after work.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Do you think the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murder? If yes, under what circumstances? If not, why not?

2. What do you think is the best explanation for why Black prisoners are overrepre- sented on death row?

3. How would you suggest punishing nonviolent-crime offenders? What sugges- tions do you have for reintegrating them into their communities?

4. Do you think it is impossible to rehabilitate certain kinds of criminals? If so, which kinds? What would you propose as their punishment?

5. In your opinion, what deterrents to crime are most effective? 6. Why do you think female offenders are more likely to report mental or substance

abuse problems than their male counterparts? 7. In some cases, a prisoner or parolee who writes a book has to forfeit its profits to

the family of his or her victim. Do you think this kind of forfeiture is just?

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 60 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime Prevention, Intervention, and Punishment The definition of crime changes as society changes its norms and values. Such changes also impact social responses to crimes. Experts comment on the study of crime, how crime impacts groups they work with, and different crime response and intervention methods.

Erik Fritsvold

Does the death penalty deter crime? Why or why not? Are there other solu- tions that more successfully deter crime? In my estimation, the death penalty is among the more frequently studied topics in all of criminology. The short answer is that the evidence about the deterrent value of the death penalty is mixed. It seems that the bulk of the evidence suggests that the death penalty does not deter crime. However, there are a modest number of studies, in the field of economics primarily, that suggest that the death penalty does deter homicide. A series of method-

ologically nuanced studies have examined violent crime rates and homicide rates in the same state over time (when that state had the death penalty and then didn’t have it and then had it again). Studies have examined neighboring states with similar crime rates and population demographics, one with the death penalty and one without, and could not unearth a deterrent effect of the death penalty. Many proponents of the death penalty (see Cameron Talley’s “In Favor of Capital Punish- ment”) reflect that the evidence is mixed on this topic at best.

Noah Fritz

What is the overarching goal of crime analysis? Consider the theory of juvenile delinquency, which discusses the chronic 6%. This argues that 6% of the offenders are responsible for about 50% of the crimes. The challenge is identifying who these serial criminals are, but if you can effectively rehabilitate them or lock them up—whatever your political philosophies are—you should be able to bring down crime by 50%. I think over the last 10 or 20 years we are doing a better job of this because we are using the data that is at our fingertips. I would argue that this is one of the reasons why we have consistently seen street crime go down.

Can you explain how crime analysis applies criminology theories and criminal justice practices? Much of classical criminology is based on rational choice theory, which is a model tied to punish- ment. This argues that if the punishment is swift enough, severe enough, you can deter crime. This is why we build jails and build prisons and do things like fine people. Ultimately, with rational choice theory, we want to know if these implementations change behaviors—does it deter the behavior we want to change. This theory is a foundation for our criminal justice system, but it also leads us to other ideas about how to address crime; routine activity theory, crime pattern theory, and environ- mental criminology are some examples.

Routine activity theory deals with the decision to commit crimes. Certain things happen in our lives that present certain opportunities. How does someone get to this place where opportunity presents itself? Is it part of my routine activities? These routines and routine behaviors—such as walking to a favorite bar—are not only applicable for the criminal but also for the victims. This addresses how a victim and an offender cross paths in space and time. When these routines in space and crime cross each other, this is where an opportunity presents itself. People who have a propensity for crime—the chronic 6%—are likely to take advantage of the opportunity to commit the crime. (continued)

Courtesy of Erik Fritsvold

Courtesy of Noah Fritz

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 61 7/5/13 4:16 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime Prevention, Intervention, and Punishment (continued) What role might technology play in sentencing or in overturning criminal convictions? Besides the most obvious impact of DNA technology—which will continue to ensure that offenders are brought to justice and erroneously suspected individuals will be cleared or even released from prison where wrongly convicted—one of the most significant changes in criminal justice will be the application of predictive analytics. The integration of this technology with new analytical models will allow the CJS [criminal justice system] to manage more offenders within the community and enhance public safety. As economic conditions force us to rely less on prison space, and evidence based prac- tices identify programs and improved offender classification systems, these new technologies will help us improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Joshua Gryniewicz

CeaseFire uses a “three-pronged approach” to reduce shootings and killings. What are these three elements? This approach is drawn out of the World Health Organization’s rubric for dis- ease control strategy and applied directly to violence. This system involves identification and detection; interruption, intervention, and risk reduction; and changing behaviors and norms.

On a larger scale, the traditional approach to violence has been through a criminal justice lens focusing on prosecution over prevention. This framework views success in terms of clearance rates (those captured and incarcerated

after the commission of a crime) and measures prevention through a crime-control perspective often termed in military language (War on Drugs or War on Gangs). CeaseFire looks to shift the discourse toward the view of violence as a disease and placing emphasis on finding solutions to end this epidemic.

Georgia Lerner

Different crimes and behaviors require different methods of response, inter- vention, and prevention. How do such factors impact the rehabilitation and reintegrate of female offenders? Women’s crimes are connected with their life experiences. Drug use follows victimization, and, while incarceration may temporarily stop a woman’s drug use, it does not address her underlying needs for support and assistance with understanding and accepting her past. It can be very painful for women to consider their pathways and recall the harm done to them, or the harm they caused to others. They need to feel safe and accepted, and can benefit from having time and opportunity to face and respond to a range of situations and experiences without drugs. If a woman always responded to insults or hurt feelings by lashing out in anger or getting high, she needs to try different ways of responding to these feelings if she wants to form construc- tive relationships and live in the community. There are several effective curricula and approaches for guiding women through a process of developing greater self-awareness and translating knowl- edge into different behaviors. Beyond these programs, it is crucial that women have opportunities to practice new ways of behaving in real-life situations where they feel safe and receive immediate and constructive feedback. (continued)

Courtesy of Georgia Lerner

Courtesy of Joshua Gryniewicz

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 62 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime Prevention, Intervention, and Punishment (continued) One of WPA’s goals is to ensure that gender is part of the decision processes related to offender sentencing, correction, and reentry into communities. How does WPA address this goal? Why is it important to consider differences affected by gender? We don’t think that being female should warrant special treatment; rather, factors that relate to a person’s criminal behavior should be taken into account when a response to their crime is being developed. There are factors that influence risk for criminal behavior (and for institutional infractions or post-release violations). Many of these factors are the same for men and women, such as criminal history, antisocial attitudes, educational challenges, etc.

There are some different factors that are influential for women, including depression/anxiety and psychotic symptoms, anger, housing safety, child abuse, adult victimization, and parental stress. Plus, there are certain factors—education and family support—that serve as strengths for women. It is important to assess women for all of these potential risks and strengths so that crime-related factors can be addressed to eliminate additional criminal behavior. People who work with women should have a basic understanding of the factors that affect women’s involvement in the criminal justice sys- tem so that they can function in a manner that acknowledges these factors, avoids causing additional harm or risk, and, ideally, promotes healing and redirection.

How is adaptation to prison and post-prison environments influenced by gender? Women are occupied by concerns about the care and welfare of their children before, during, and after incarceration. Parental stress contributes to a woman’s risk for criminal behavior, conduct infractions during incarceration, and violation of conditions of parole. Family support is a strength that can help protect against this risk. In prison, concerns about children are amplified by the impos- sibility of regular communication. Prisoners have limited access to telephones and are permitted only to make collect calls that usually have prison-related surcharges, and many families cannot afford to pay for these calls. Geography also makes it difficult to maintain family ties. Many prisons are located in remote rural areas that are difficult and costly to reach by public transportation. Chil- dren cannot travel to them alone, and their school schedules and the work and other commitments of their caretakers usually mean that visits are rare occurrences. WPA has advocated for geography to be considered when sentencing decisions are made. But, even if geography is considered, there are usually very few women’s prisons in a state, and it may be impossible to place a woman in a prison that is convenient to her family.

Passage of the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997 required that states take action to prevent children from languishing in foster care for so long that they missed any chance of being adopted. Many states adopted the most restrictive interpretation of the law, which prescribed that a petition to terminate parental rights be initiated when a child was in foster care for 15 months in a 22-month period without significant parental involvement. Women who are incarcerated face tremendous obstacles to maintaining parental involvement, and may have neither the opportunity to nor an understanding of the importance of their participation in family-court proceedings related to the care and custody of their children. Often, women are released from prison and learn that a process for termination of parental rights has begun.

It is important for service providers who work with women in correctional facilities and in the com- munity to pay attention to a woman’s desires related to custody of her children and to take steps to assure that a mother’s voice is included in any decisions. In practical terms, this means that women may be averse to going to residential treatment programs or making other exclusive or (continued)

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 63 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 2

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime Prevention, Intervention, and Punishment (continued) restrictive commitments that could further delay contact with children. WPA works with women and with community partners to develop a constellation of opportunities that allow women to address multiple needs and goals simultaneously.

Jody Lewen

Does the death penalty deter crime? Why or why not? Are there other solu- tions that more successfully deter crime? Statistics show that the death penalty does not deter crime. In fact, states with the death penalty consistently have a higher murder rate than states without the death penalty (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2001). People whose life circumstances make them vulnerable to violence and make them more sus- ceptible to acting violently usually do not consider the possibility of being executed by the state as a factor in deciding whether they will commit a vio-

lent act. In such cases, the personal and environmental stressors, coupled with the lack of healthy coping strategies override the thinking process. For many, the threat of violence and facing their own mortality is a daily occurrence and therefore not intimidating. For instance, many gang members believe that they will be killed at any time.

Alleviating poverty and thus protecting people from associated threats and pressures (such as unem- ployment, substance abuse, and violence) can possibly deter crime. Nurturing people at the com- munity level instead of only getting involved in someone’s life after the crime is committed is one possible solution.

What role do prison education programs, such as Prison University Program’s College Program, have in addressing or preventing offenders from producing the types of behaviors that society deems harmful? Some of the most important causal factors in behaviors that are harmful to society are poverty, addiction, and the lack of employment opportunities. In addition, many people who commit serious crimes have often had very negative experiences in school and have experienced severe trauma in their own lives, often at a very young age. Rigorous prison education programs allow students to experience their own intelligence and grasp their own potential, which motivates them to continue their studies, which in turn strengthens their job prospects. Positive educational experiences also improve self-confidence and give people a sense of connectedness to the larger world, which makes them feel more accountable to their communities.

Improved job prospects mean increased earning potential, which increases the capacity of formerly incarcerated people to take care of themselves and their families. Being better educated also allows people to support their own children’s educational persistence and to model academic success for their families and communities. The children of incarcerated people have a 50% chance of being incarcerated themselves, so if creating educational opportunities for their parents improves those children’s long-term prospects for familial stability and educational success, this should be reason enough to support such programs!

Courtesy of Jody Lewen

coL82305_02_c02_033-064.indd 64 7/5/13 4:17 PM