A Broken System: The United States Prison System

A Broken System:
The United States Prison System

Abstract
The United States prison system is not a suitable place for nonviolent drug offenders. The high rate of recidivism is caused by one thing and one thing only, prison sentences. Nonviolent drug offenders will have no choice other than to socialize with other inmates, some who have committed irreprehensible crimes, thereby greatly increasing their chance of becoming violent. The population of prisons in the United States is on a steady rise. One way to stop this is by reevaluating the three strikes law, because the proof that this law discourages repeat offenders is simply not there.

Nobody will disagree with this fact; the prison system in the United States is overcrowded. The population is constantly on the rise and doesn’t show any signs of stopping. The news is constantly reporting that our prisons and local jails are overtaxed and they need more money to build more space to accommodate their ever increasing population. There is controversy, however, when it comes to the type of prisoners that contribute to this issue. It is a cold hard fact that the law imprisons nonviolent drug offenders. It is, however, a matter of opinion if this law works to rehabilitate these offenders. Do they get rehabilitated or do they “serve their time” only to come out and offend again, ending up right back where they started? The rehabilitation process that the prisons claim to offer simply does not work. There must be some other way to “punish” this group of people. This type of socialization cannot possibly be beneficial to the 18 year old boy who gets popped with a joint. The first time offender is almost certainly doomed if changes are not on the horizon. We must then contemplate the three strike law. If this law worked, then surely our prison population would not be a topic for debate. Former inmates would have an education and be able to get jobs upon their release, but this just isn’t happening. Prison is not the place for a nonviolent drug offender because they need is help and rehabilitation, not punishment. Putting a nonviolent drug offender, or any nonviolent offender for that matter, in prison cannot possibly result in a positive effect. “Detention causes recidivism; those leaving prison have more chance than before of going back to it; convicts are, in a very high proportion, former inmates”. Michael Foucault, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison,” in Sound Ideas, ed. Krasny M., Sokolik, M. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 457. If this statement is true, then sending nonviolent drug offenders to prison is in effect causing the exact opposite of what the law was originally intended to do. The law assumes that by taking away the freedom of these offenders it will deter them from breaking the law again. The punishment for a nonviolent drug offender should not be the same punishment that is handed down to a murderer, rapist or child molester. Looking at the high recidivism rates it could certainly be assumed that prison terms simply do not work and a change is needed. If a nonviolent drug offender is more likely to go back to prison then he was prior to his arrest, then it would only stand to reason that he should not be sent there in the first place. Socialization, as humans, begins the day we are born and continues throughout most of our lives. It is society’s job as a whole to make sure the younger generation is socialized and acclimated to function as a productive member of society. It is not and never will be beneficial to sentence a young, impressionable, nonviolent drug offender to a prison term where the only socialization he will learn will be from criminals, some which have committed heinous crimes. Between witnessing prison fights, being subjected to brutality from other prisoners and being forced to choose a social group i.e. gang life, the young drug offender will not learn the lesson as intended. He will learn justifications and excuses, as well as more brutal ways to solve problems. That type of socialization will most certainly increase his chances of committing a violent crime. “Brutality leads to brutality.” Frank Tannenbaum, “Prison Cruelty,” in Sound Ideas, ed. Krasny, M., Sokolik, M. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 472. No, this is not the place for a young impressionable man who has taken a slight misstep in life.
Using the same example as mentioned previously, (the young man who gets popped with a joint) he has now learned his social skills from violent offenders. He is released, and in using the social skills he learned while incarcerated, lands himself back in prison. This time it is for a longer stint which in turn reinforces the socialization skills he acquired the first time around. He is “rehabilitated” and is released yet again. He is a little older, but none the wiser, and commits yet another crime. Regardless of the crime, he is sentenced to life in prison as a result of the three strikes law. The cycle repeats, the prison population increases, and another young nonviolent drug offender will be taught as this once young man was taught by his predecessors. If by chance he gets released early, due to none other than prison overcrowding, he stands little chance of being a successful and productive member of society. He is released with “no money, no job and no schooling…” Jimmy Santiago Baca, “The Importance of a Piece of Paper,” in Sound Ideas, ed. Krasny, M., Sokolik, M. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 514. The chance for this young man was lost many years ago because the laws that govern crime and punishment placed him in a place that “cannot fail to produce delinquents…..” (Foucault, 1975, p. 456). This vicious cycle must be discontinued immediately.
There is no proof that the three strikes law works. This is because the individuals who are handed this judgment are incarcerated for the better part of what is left of their lives. The judge does not pay a visit to these inmates after several years of incarceration and ask them if they have learned their lesson. Also, the individuals aren’t given a chance to be rehabilitated. They are only being punished, and with very little chance of having a successful release. They more than likely learned their socialization skills from their previous time spent behind bars. They are the result of a broken prison system- a system that causes first time offenders to become repeat offenders, and repeat offenders to spend the rest of their lives incarcerated. Nonviolent drug offenders need help, like being required to report to 12-Step meetings or being trained in a technical trade. This type of assistance will ensure they have the skills needed to be successful upon regaining their freedom. Being sentenced to serve time in the United States prison system is not the type of “help” they require. (1222)

References
Foucault, M. (1975). Illegalities and Delinquency. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 456-461). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Santiago Baca, J. (2004). Enemies. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 509-518). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tannenbaum, F. (1920). Prison Cruelty. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 466- 480). New York: McGraw-Hill.

References
Foucault, M. (1975). Illegalities and Delinquency. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 456-461). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Santiago Baca, J. (2004). Enemies. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 509-518). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tannenbaum, F. (1920). Prison Cruelty. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 466- 480). New York: McGraw-Hill.

References: Foucault, M. (1975). Illegalities and Delinquency. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 456-461). New York: McGraw-Hill. Santiago Baca, J. (2004). Enemies. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 509-518). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tannenbaum, F. (1920). Prison Cruelty. In M. Krasny and M.E. Sokolik (Eds.) Sound Ideas (pp. 466- 480). New York: McGraw-Hill.