When They Get Out Abramsky Analysis
“When They Get Out” by Sasha Abramsky cries out to the general public for the change in corrections that the convicted are unable to do. Abramsky leaves nothing to chance in his war on the prison systems for the awakening of the American society to an ever growing problem. Therefore, Abramsky commissions an argument with real uncensored facts. In spite of how incarceration envisions reforming the convicted, Abramsky argues that the prison system corrupts prisoners into worse criminal behaviors. Throughout his essay, Abramsky vehemently questions the true motive of the continuously expanding correctional system. As Abramsky blatantly brandishes the numerous faults of corrections, he splits the purpose of corrections into two separate motives,
…show more content…
justice seeking and rehabilitation. Justice seeking, as righteous and fortifying as it sounds, has fallen into a detriment according to Abramsky. In the place of actual justice seeking a facade has been built that sandbags the correction system. As a way to “keep the general public safe” an increase in maximum security facility establishing has exponentially grown. David C. Fathi states (2015) “[b]y 2006, more than 40 states, as well as the federal government, had at least one supermax prison, collectively holding about 25,000 prisoners” (2015, p.169), a number that has surely grown since then. In correlation to the spike in maximum security facilities extended incarceration of the unlawful has not waned in the least. Sentences have become harsher due to the false impression of crime rates, rates that have dropped significantly compared to the past. According to Abramsky “[p]eople haven't become more antisocial; their infractions and bad habits are just being punished more ruthlessly” (1999), with two of the worst methods to be discussed in detail later on. Abramsky’s assault on justice seeking as an incorrect motive dwarfs his belief of the ideal motive of corrections, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has been believed to be the purpose of corrections since its first proponents, most notably Dorothea Dix. According to Malsin (2015) “Most believed that rehabilitation was both possible for these criminals and benefits for American society, and that a properly designed prison could achieve such aims” (p.140), however, Abramsky argues that this motive has been lost almost entirely. Despite Abramsky’s lack of reference of rehabilitation, it still poses significant advantages to the convicted. Skill and education building, for example, has been one of the reasons for Abramsky’s argument for reform regardless of his arguing on the opposing stance. Based on the words of Cusac (2015) “On average, inmates who participated in correctional educational programs had 43 percent lower odds of recidivating than inmates who did not” (p.29), this does not even refer to the benefits within the workforce from programs designated for such endeavors. Abramsky’s strict conviction of the corrupt justice seeking motive of the prison system, leaves counterargument of sufficient rehabilitation open for discussion. Moreover, it allows proponents of prison reform the chance to underscore assets are for change in correctional policies that govern prison reform. As stated by reformed convict John Turner (as cited in Cusac, 2015) “Turner witnessed shifts in corrections policy...Programs were added, the food became healthier, prisoners got more support”, clear indication of the positive attributes changes in correctional policies have in the long run. Therefore, Abramsky pleads his case against the correctional system by highlighting what he considers to be the methods of the correctional system. In addition, Abramsky expunged upon the controversies that equate to the actions taken in the pursuit of justice as they are afflicted onto the convicted. In his essay, Abramsky delegates the blame of the system to the abhorrent use and effects of isolation and maximum security facilities or “supermax” for short. Although it is not as widely spread as other forms of punishment, isolation still stands as one of the more severe. The actual employment of solitary confinement as a whole can be described as something exceedingly obscene. Abramsky details this by referencing the case of one Robert Scully a victim of solitary confinement. According to Abramsky (1999) “He [Scully] was placed in a "security housing unit" cell, where for close to twenty-three hours a day he was deprived of all human interaction”, not mention that the for the seven hours of human interaction were, more or less, negative in aspect. Any form of isolation has some negative drawbacks no matter the level of severity.
However, in the case of Sully and those with the same punishment, it can be pushed beyond the brink of sanity. Based on the workings of Fathi (2015) “A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition...others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide” (p.170), despite these clearly immoral issues it still stands as a plausible punishment. In most cases, the negative effects of solitary confinement can be far reaching into person's mind. In a study found by Fathi (2015) “[N]o study of the effects of solitary or supermax-like confinement that lasted longer than 60 days failed to find evidence of negative psychological effects” (p.170), with ranging levels of damage done that could actually be recorded. Moreover, as stated by Abramsky (1999), could turn Robert Scully, originally convicted of robbery and drug charges, into a killer and attempted kidnapper. In his argument, Abramsky paints a vivid and saddening portrait of the vessel that holds its captives to standards that are no short of appalling, the super¬max. A place designed to torment the already freedom less and
unreformed. Outside of solitary confinement, Abramsky has noted cruel punishments so heart wrenching that sympathy to those who are affected by such actions would be acceptable. According to Abramsky (1999) “The guards there...they would sometimes break up the battles by shooting into crowds of prisoners. Scully was shot twice”, no matter the circumstance, there is no acceptable cause for such deplorable actions. Apart from the basic acts of cruelty described by Abramsky that are more noticeable, there are latent forms of punishment that attack a person’s mental state. There are many forms of these inhumane depravations, far too many to account for, that act against a person once incarcerated. According to Abramsky, “provided with virtually no sensory stimuli for months or years on end, deprived of full meals as punishment for breaking rules, made to dress in paper gowns if they dare to rip up their uniforms” (1999), a minor look into the more prominent inhumane depravations. Abramsky continues his argument by turning his judgement on society as a whole. Abramsky also states, though indirectly of course, that the nature of society makes abiding by the social contract difficult, if not improbable, for newly released prisoners. Part of the problem stems from the societal shunning against ex-felons seeking normality. As the reformed prisoners are released, they are tasked with the issue of assimilating back into the general public. However, the newly released face the inability to receive employment do stigmatization of his or her character. According to Abramsky, “[f]aced with a growing population of ex-felons, people with resources will probably flee these communities, thereby expanding the areas of devastation” (1999), an ever rising number that not only inhibits assimilation, but also, passes the stigma of the ex-felons like a virus. Moreover, the stigma of race plays a key role in the victimization of not only convicts seeking reform, but as well as, anyone of the same race, most likely Hispanic and African American, who have never fallen to criminal acts. As noted by the Survey of State Prisons, 63% of inmates in 1991 were either African American or Hispanic American (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991 p.3). In tangent with this shunning, is the prisoner’s ineligibility to vote. As noted by Abramsky, “wholesale incarceration decimates voter rolls….in all but four states prisoners convicted of felonies lose the right to vote. In more than thirty states they can reapply only when they're off parole” (1999), meaning that those released pay taxes to the government they are unable to vote for. In an even worse case, Abramsky mentions the twelve states that have left their convicted permanently unable to vote (1999). The second aspect of the social contract that goes unheard is the irrevocable harm thrust upon the ex-felons attempting to continue their reform. Due to the numerous issues and stigmas that are thrown at the ex-convicts they are left struggling in search of assistance. The struggle of trying to support themselves or a family, an extended search for employment, or some other extraneous circumstance results in the ex-cons to fall back into criminal behavior causing them to return to prison. Based on the words JoAnne Page, “many of them, lacking jobs upon release and having no access to state support, will resort to stealing just to eat” (as cited in Abramsky, 1999), all due to the stigma of once being in prison. Unfortunately, it does not end there for the ex-convicted. JoAnne Page goes on to say, “many will also end up homeless, with their best chance of finding shelter being to commit crimes and return to jail or prison” (as cited in Abramsky, 1999, ), underscoring the fact that the prison system partnered with the extensive stigmatisms, does nothing but disheartens any convict whose goal is to seek reformation. At the crux of the irrevocable harms is one issue that is completely inescapable by any convict. Once released, the convicted experience a complete social shutdown that alters how they work when they have been locked up for long periods of time. Life on the outside, as happily as a person may be, will never be the same. Routines, paranoias, triggers, and any major changes while incarcerated will never be the same. In one case, as reported by former convict Edmond Taylor, “His brother criticized him for some of the attitudes he'd brought out of prison with him. “I felt fed up, and I attacked him"” (1999, n.d.), despite the love and care Taylor has for his sibling, the exposure he received from being in the prison system changed how he functions in society. In conclusion, Abramsky pits himself against society’s belief of crime as an escalating problem. In his argument, he allows the unfiltered truth and reality of the prison system as a weapon to aid his cause and achieve his ultimate goal of change in the correction system for the convicted and released felons. Abramsky, in his own way, convicts the very system whose original purpose was to help those who strayed away from the social contract. Moreover, he places the fault and the burden upon that same system in regards to the actions newly released convicts partake in as a result of mental assaults due to an unjust system. He does not excuse the convicts of crimes they committed that lead to their current situations. However, he urges there to be some reconciliation of how the prison system goes about its basic functions. Lastly, Abramsky wants the prison system along with the society to understand that the individuals who called a prison their home at some point are still human and should not be counted against because of their past if they seek to have a better future.
justice seeking and rehabilitation. Justice seeking, as righteous and fortifying as it sounds, has fallen into a detriment according to Abramsky. In the place of actual justice seeking a facade has been built that sandbags the correction system. As a way to “keep the general public safe” an increase in maximum security facility establishing has exponentially grown. David C. Fathi states (2015) “[b]y 2006, more than 40 states, as well as the federal government, had at least one supermax prison, collectively holding about 25,000 prisoners” (2015, p.169), a number that has surely grown since then. In correlation to the spike in maximum security facilities extended incarceration of the unlawful has not waned in the least. Sentences have become harsher due to the false impression of crime rates, rates that have dropped significantly compared to the past. According to Abramsky “[p]eople haven't become more antisocial; their infractions and bad habits are just being punished more ruthlessly” (1999), with two of the worst methods to be discussed in detail later on. Abramsky’s assault on justice seeking as an incorrect motive dwarfs his belief of the ideal motive of corrections, rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has been believed to be the purpose of corrections since its first proponents, most notably Dorothea Dix. According to Malsin (2015) “Most believed that rehabilitation was both possible for these criminals and benefits for American society, and that a properly designed prison could achieve such aims” (p.140), however, Abramsky argues that this motive has been lost almost entirely. Despite Abramsky’s lack of reference of rehabilitation, it still poses significant advantages to the convicted. Skill and education building, for example, has been one of the reasons for Abramsky’s argument for reform regardless of his arguing on the opposing stance. Based on the words of Cusac (2015) “On average, inmates who participated in correctional educational programs had 43 percent lower odds of recidivating than inmates who did not” (p.29), this does not even refer to the benefits within the workforce from programs designated for such endeavors. Abramsky’s strict conviction of the corrupt justice seeking motive of the prison system, leaves counterargument of sufficient rehabilitation open for discussion. Moreover, it allows proponents of prison reform the chance to underscore assets are for change in correctional policies that govern prison reform. As stated by reformed convict John Turner (as cited in Cusac, 2015) “Turner witnessed shifts in corrections policy...Programs were added, the food became healthier, prisoners got more support”, clear indication of the positive attributes changes in correctional policies have in the long run. Therefore, Abramsky pleads his case against the correctional system by highlighting what he considers to be the methods of the correctional system. In addition, Abramsky expunged upon the controversies that equate to the actions taken in the pursuit of justice as they are afflicted onto the convicted. In his essay, Abramsky delegates the blame of the system to the abhorrent use and effects of isolation and maximum security facilities or “supermax” for short. Although it is not as widely spread as other forms of punishment, isolation still stands as one of the more severe. The actual employment of solitary confinement as a whole can be described as something exceedingly obscene. Abramsky details this by referencing the case of one Robert Scully a victim of solitary confinement. According to Abramsky (1999) “He [Scully] was placed in a "security housing unit" cell, where for close to twenty-three hours a day he was deprived of all human interaction”, not mention that the for the seven hours of human interaction were, more or less, negative in aspect. Any form of isolation has some negative drawbacks no matter the level of severity.
However, in the case of Sully and those with the same punishment, it can be pushed beyond the brink of sanity. Based on the workings of Fathi (2015) “A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition...others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide” (p.170), despite these clearly immoral issues it still stands as a plausible punishment. In most cases, the negative effects of solitary confinement can be far reaching into person's mind. In a study found by Fathi (2015) “[N]o study of the effects of solitary or supermax-like confinement that lasted longer than 60 days failed to find evidence of negative psychological effects” (p.170), with ranging levels of damage done that could actually be recorded. Moreover, as stated by Abramsky (1999), could turn Robert Scully, originally convicted of robbery and drug charges, into a killer and attempted kidnapper. In his argument, Abramsky paints a vivid and saddening portrait of the vessel that holds its captives to standards that are no short of appalling, the super¬max. A place designed to torment the already freedom less and
unreformed. Outside of solitary confinement, Abramsky has noted cruel punishments so heart wrenching that sympathy to those who are affected by such actions would be acceptable. According to Abramsky (1999) “The guards there...they would sometimes break up the battles by shooting into crowds of prisoners. Scully was shot twice”, no matter the circumstance, there is no acceptable cause for such deplorable actions. Apart from the basic acts of cruelty described by Abramsky that are more noticeable, there are latent forms of punishment that attack a person’s mental state. There are many forms of these inhumane depravations, far too many to account for, that act against a person once incarcerated. According to Abramsky, “provided with virtually no sensory stimuli for months or years on end, deprived of full meals as punishment for breaking rules, made to dress in paper gowns if they dare to rip up their uniforms” (1999), a minor look into the more prominent inhumane depravations. Abramsky continues his argument by turning his judgement on society as a whole. Abramsky also states, though indirectly of course, that the nature of society makes abiding by the social contract difficult, if not improbable, for newly released prisoners. Part of the problem stems from the societal shunning against ex-felons seeking normality. As the reformed prisoners are released, they are tasked with the issue of assimilating back into the general public. However, the newly released face the inability to receive employment do stigmatization of his or her character. According to Abramsky, “[f]aced with a growing population of ex-felons, people with resources will probably flee these communities, thereby expanding the areas of devastation” (1999), an ever rising number that not only inhibits assimilation, but also, passes the stigma of the ex-felons like a virus. Moreover, the stigma of race plays a key role in the victimization of not only convicts seeking reform, but as well as, anyone of the same race, most likely Hispanic and African American, who have never fallen to criminal acts. As noted by the Survey of State Prisons, 63% of inmates in 1991 were either African American or Hispanic American (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991 p.3). In tangent with this shunning, is the prisoner’s ineligibility to vote. As noted by Abramsky, “wholesale incarceration decimates voter rolls….in all but four states prisoners convicted of felonies lose the right to vote. In more than thirty states they can reapply only when they're off parole” (1999), meaning that those released pay taxes to the government they are unable to vote for. In an even worse case, Abramsky mentions the twelve states that have left their convicted permanently unable to vote (1999). The second aspect of the social contract that goes unheard is the irrevocable harm thrust upon the ex-felons attempting to continue their reform. Due to the numerous issues and stigmas that are thrown at the ex-convicts they are left struggling in search of assistance. The struggle of trying to support themselves or a family, an extended search for employment, or some other extraneous circumstance results in the ex-cons to fall back into criminal behavior causing them to return to prison. Based on the words JoAnne Page, “many of them, lacking jobs upon release and having no access to state support, will resort to stealing just to eat” (as cited in Abramsky, 1999), all due to the stigma of once being in prison. Unfortunately, it does not end there for the ex-convicted. JoAnne Page goes on to say, “many will also end up homeless, with their best chance of finding shelter being to commit crimes and return to jail or prison” (as cited in Abramsky, 1999, ), underscoring the fact that the prison system partnered with the extensive stigmatisms, does nothing but disheartens any convict whose goal is to seek reformation. At the crux of the irrevocable harms is one issue that is completely inescapable by any convict. Once released, the convicted experience a complete social shutdown that alters how they work when they have been locked up for long periods of time. Life on the outside, as happily as a person may be, will never be the same. Routines, paranoias, triggers, and any major changes while incarcerated will never be the same. In one case, as reported by former convict Edmond Taylor, “His brother criticized him for some of the attitudes he'd brought out of prison with him. “I felt fed up, and I attacked him"” (1999, n.d.), despite the love and care Taylor has for his sibling, the exposure he received from being in the prison system changed how he functions in society. In conclusion, Abramsky pits himself against society’s belief of crime as an escalating problem. In his argument, he allows the unfiltered truth and reality of the prison system as a weapon to aid his cause and achieve his ultimate goal of change in the correction system for the convicted and released felons. Abramsky, in his own way, convicts the very system whose original purpose was to help those who strayed away from the social contract. Moreover, he places the fault and the burden upon that same system in regards to the actions newly released convicts partake in as a result of mental assaults due to an unjust system. He does not excuse the convicts of crimes they committed that lead to their current situations. However, he urges there to be some reconciliation of how the prison system goes about its basic functions. Lastly, Abramsky wants the prison system along with the society to understand that the individuals who called a prison their home at some point are still human and should not be counted against because of their past if they seek to have a better future.