Animal Abuse...So To Speak: History of American Prison Crowding.

When one hears the word caged or branded, they often think of the animals to which these acts are normally associated. This may also bring up words like mistreatment and animal abuse, which, of course, bring up the infamous P.E.T.A.; they represent the rights of dogs, cats, pigs, minks, and even turkeys. Pretty much, when one hears of an animal being offended in any way, shape, or form, P.E.T.A. will step in to bring light on the issue. Yet, one animal still continues to suffer in silence, ignored by animal rights groups and other aid associations dedicated to the removal of suffering. Sadly, the one being ignored is being ignored by its own kind. These are the human beings caged away forever in the sardine cans of American punishment. These animals are inmates in our country’s prison system, and they are being ignored and forgotten by a cruel society, who feels prison is the rug and the criminals are the dust-bunnies; sweep them in and leave them to rot.
America chooses to belittle the prison problem because they feel those locked in prison might as well be forgotten. Prison overcrowding is quickly becoming a problem because people feel that criminals need to be locked up, and citizens could care less about the rights of those who will be sitting in a prison cell for the next fifteen years. But people need to listen because no one wants to be sitting in a ten foot by six foot cell with two other people. By looking at crime with this ‘sweep and forget’ mentality, we have officially packed our prisons to the brink of the ridiculous. Still, politicians wonder how the prison population could have become so over-packed in such a short period of time. When one looks at the facts, it’s quite simple how the nation’s prisons have slowly become the most over-crowded in the world; America has one-twentieth of the world’s population and yet holds one-fourth of the world’s prisoners (Prison overcrowding, 2004). It all has to do with American history and the feelings of society in one of our most controversial time periods.
In the 1960’s, it was quite evident that the subculture was rather strong. The life of hippies and dopers was one of promiscuity, petition, and, at the time, legal drug use. The era had changed and new drugs were coming into their own, with them a new, rebellious generation. America was in the Vietnam War, un-popular to the young generation, and was on the brink of destruction. Yet, as the smoke cleared and the war ended, America was left with veterans returning home addicted to drugs, and sections of San Francisco once dedicated to peace now over-run by speed freaks. A change had to be made and soon. Politicians started cracking down because society wanted strict action against crime and drugs. Some of the first harsh laws were passed in the following decade, and would remain in heated debate for years to come.
The Rockefeller drug laws, named for the New York City governor who passed the bill, were the first of the harsh laws passed against non-violent offenders in our nation’s history. They mandated that the judge must inflict extreme punishment on non-violent, drug offenders. The details say any person caught dealing two or more ounces of a controlled substance are to receive minimum fifteen years to life imprisonment. The law, of course, was created to bring down drug cartel leaders, but failed to specify a difference between those leading the operation and those just delivering the product for a fee. As a result, many small time dealers were jailed for long periods of time because they were busted while carrying the drug (Smiley, 2004). Another influential law in the history of prison over-crowding is the declaration of the drug war, in response to the crack epidemic of the 1980’s, and the use of mandatory sentencing. Before this new form of stricter punishment, most judges were given a maximum allowed sentence to which they must adhere. What mandatory sentencing did was remove a maximum sentence and gave judges a minimum sentence allowing them much more leeway in the final decision on prison time (Mandatory sentencing, 2004). Yet, the most infamous and problematic law involving sentencing has to be California’s “Three-strikes law.” The law was designed to keep violent offenders of the streets, especially those with repeat offenses. The problem is it included any past serious drug charges has violent crimes, causing the lock up of a serious number of non-violent offenders (Harris, 1995). As criminologist James Fox explains, “…the goal [of mandatory sentencing] is undercut when those who commit violent crimes not covered by mandatory sentences receive short terms to make room for all of the non-violent drug offenders filling US prisons” (Walters, 2006). While politicians dedicated a campaign against crime, federal prisons were taking a big hit because new arrivals were coming everyday and space was wearing thin.
Prisons do not have infinite space to house prisoners, though some politicians choose to believe the opposite, and they are become severally crowded due to the sudden rush of new convicts. Obviously, the fact that prisoner’s basic human rights are being violated is a big deal. Prisoners are being denied medical attention, comfortable living space, and protection because prisons do not have the capability to fulfill their needs. An inmate known has K32096 contracted Hepatitis-C while in prison and waited a whole five months to see a doctor, when the source was published he had yet to see anyone about the problem (Hotel California, 2005). Also, over-crowding has become so problematic to some states that the federal government has given them official orders to solve the problem or be charged with cruel and unusual punishment (Taylor, 1997). Another drastic effect of prison packing is recidivism. It does not help that the average American probably could not define the word recidivism. Recidivism is when an inmate leaves a correctional institution only to be re-incarcerated within the next few years, and America has the biggest problem with this issue. In California, a state that declared prison crowding a national emergency, the recidivism rate for an inmate is at seventy-five percent within the first three years of release and drops to sixty percent after that (Hotel California, 2005). If correctional facilities do not correct, how does America expect to keep its prisons in good condition?
People like to believe that problems like recidivism and prison standards are based only in prison and have no actual affect on the surrounding communities, but this is not the case at all. California, at one time, had an exemplary public school system known around the world. Now public school funding has dropped to forty-sixth in the country because California has to worry about prison population before students. The average budget for prisons, in a single year, rises approximately thirteen percent; on the other hand, Medicaid, investments in higher learning, and “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” all rise at a meager seven percent or lower (Taylor, 1997). What does this mean? Well, it means that America is spending more on incarcerating its criminals than on medical treatment for the elderly, education for children, and relief for families in dire need. When the budget for education is cut in a state, whose prison population is filled with eighty-five percent high school drop outs, because they need the money to build new prisons, the issue is with priorities rather than lack of money (Taylor, 1997).
So, how does one go about changing this packing problem without removing more money from other parts of a state’s budget? Well, the solution is a kind of mine-field, in that you never know if attempting to solve the problem will cause more or less problems within itself. Some states have chosen to pass on prisoners to other less packed states in the hopes of curing their crowding problem, but this is only a short fix and even while putting out prisoners more just keep piling in (O’Connor, 1997). Another affective, but controversial, solution is the shortening of some offenders sentences to allow more room for violent offenders. The only problem is many times violent offenders are not the ones being punished. Plus, new truth-in-sentence laws make it almost impossible for judges to hand out smaller sentences to specific cases because the law specifies the sentence. Without the judge calling the shots, many prisons resort to a good behavior rule; meaning, for every good day a prisoner has during their time they lose one day of their sentence (Prison overcrowding, 2004). But with this idea a prisoner only has to sit back and watch their time shorten while they relax in their cell, waiting for freedom and another chance at crime. Other states, like Kentucky, took a more drastic approach and demanded the release of all non-violent criminals, whose offenses involved drug or property crimes, within ninety days. The idea was repealed after seeing the number of parole violations within the following year (Walters, 2006).
Maybe, the solution to overcrowding does not involve releasing prisoners to make room. Maybe the solution involves keeping prisoners from re-committing crimes. With the war on drugs so popular and so many harsh punishments associated with drug use, it would be logical to believe that states are giving intense amounts of money to drug rehabilitation. This is not the case. In fact, many drug rehabs are non-profit organizations and receive little funding from the prisons budget. Although prison guards, in California, have managed to get their pay tripled in the last twenty years, no money is sent to rehabilitation in any way (Hotel California, 2005). Why is rehabilitation important? It is the cure.
Rehabilitation is proven to be effective in the treatment of criminals. “Some eighty percent of heavy users [of cocaine] stay off the drug while in treatment, and thirteen percent of treated addicts kick the habit…” (Fretzin, 1997). A special aid group known as the Delancey Street has been around since the early seventies and has seen much success in treating ex-cons. It is so effective because, shockingly, Delancey Street is prisoner support group run by ex-cons. Who better to understand the problems criminals face out on the street than those who faced it all themselves? Delancey Street concentrates on teaching the ex-convicts skills that will help them get by in the real world. Though workers admit being taking advantage of and betrayed by the trust they give to inmates, they see it has a natural process towards rehabilitation (Fretzin, 1997).
Dogs, cats, and chickens have P.E.T.A., but where are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Prisoners? Truthfully, P.E.T.P. does not exist and never will because people do not care about the ethical treatment of prisoner. What people care about is tying up America’s problems and forgetting about them. Drugs may be a problem in America, along with other crimes, but locking up the people committing the act does not remove the problem. There will always be another generation coming to fulfill that last bunch of addicts.
Maybe the British had it right when they sent all their prisoners to Australia. That is a large enough prison right? The facts are clear. The idea of being tough on crime has paid off and over a million people have been incarcerated because of it, but now new problems have arisen and need to be addressed. Years ago a person could survive after a stint in prison, but this era is not the same because we have a new standard for citizens, and being a criminal does not fit in well. Instead of locking up citizens for years and effectively ending their education or job training, maybe states should dedicate their money and time to the betterment of these lost people. Better treatment equals better people, and better people equal less crime. So, though it may cost more, improve the people. Doing so will in turn improve the nation.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •