Editor’s note: This article is part of the 2010 Corrections1 End of the Year Report. Please visit the main page for the end of the year report here.
By Dr. Bruce Bayley
We’ve all read headlines like these: “What’s wrong with our prisons?”, “Voice for broken prisons,” and “A nation of jailbirds.” At first glance, the media makes America’s correctional system appear to be nothing more than a throwback to the days where inmate maltreatment and abuse were the norm, not the exception. Unfortunately, the attacks on corrections do not stop there. Politicians, celebrities, and even stuffy university professors spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing how we punish those who violate our laws. Recently, increased national exposure came in the form of The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 (Senator Jim Webb (D, VA). On his website he outlines the need for the Act, and four of Senator Webb’s five reasons for “Why we urgently need this legislation” focus on issues directly related to corrections. They are:
• With 5 percent of the world’s population, our country now houses 25 percent of the world’s reported prisoners
• The number of incarcerated drug offenders has soared 1200% since 1980
• Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals
• Post-incarceration re-entry programs are haphazard and often nonexistent, undermining public safety and making it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to become full, contributing members of society
No one will argue that our system is perfect, but then again, no method dealing with offenders is (or ever will be). Additionally, most would agree that it’s both prudent and imperative to continually seek ways to improve how we handle offenders. But is our correctional system really as bad as people say, or could it be that the profession of corrections is being used to mask problems that exist elsewhere? Remember, the first three conditions on Senator Webb’s list are not problems that have been created by corrections – they are problems that have been forced upon corrections by others.
To highlight these problems – and identify the possible culprits – it’s helpful to take a look at two of the more prominent “correctional” issues that exist today – overcrowding and disproportionate minority confinement.
Overcrowding
It’s quite possible that no “correctional” issue has received more attention over the last decade than the number of individuals incarcerated in America. While there are a variety of ways to calculate overcrowding, the data are undeniable and the trends concerning. For example, Luke Whyte, former editor for CorrrectionsOne does an outstanding job of chronicling the levels of incarceration in California through his groundbreaking work, “Voices of Justice.” There, Mr. Whyte highlights the fact that “the California prison population grew 874 percent between 1977 and 2007” and in 2007, “California’s 33 prisons were at 202.53% capacity.” As a response to these growing numbers, the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to hear arguments alleging that the overcrowded conditions in California should qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for the offenders housed there. But who’s really responsible for facility overcrowding? The answer: the American court system and politicians, NOT corrections. Remember, a primary charge of corrections is to oversee the orders of the court. Our correctional system doesn’t try an offender, nor does it sentence the guilty. In general, it’s forced to accept any individual sentenced by the judiciary. Imagine what would happen if a judge remanded someone to 6 months in the county jail and corrections officials said “sorry, we’re full.” Facility overcrowding is in fact a direct result of ineffective sentencing by our judicial system. By using the term “overcrowding,” we effectively shift the blame from those responsible – the courts – to those tasked with doing the best they can in a bad situation: corrections. In the spirit of fairness and equity, perhaps we should change the term from “overcrowding” to “ineffective judicial discretion,” thereby refocusing the issue onto those who are actually causing the problem.
Keep in mind, however, that politicians are also culpable for these conditions. Corrections, like every other part of our criminal justice system, is currently facing economic deficits. Departments have budgets with which to operate and if politicians refuse to allocate the funds needed to effectively manage inmates they receive from the courts, correctional agencies are forced to either exceed their mandated capacities (as California is facing) or release potentially dangerous offenders back into society to make room for incoming convicts (from the courts). In addition, it’s also the politicians who have created mandatory minimum sentences, thereby removing any type of discretionary alternate a judge may wish to invoke. Ultimately, those in corrections are left to shoulder the blame for the poor use of judicial discretion at sentencing and political posturing by legislatures and judges who need to appear tough on crime.
Disproportionate Minority Confinement
Like overcrowding, disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) is a heated topic within the corrections field. Are we incarcerating minorities at a higher rate than whites? Again, there are many ways to calculate DMC, but the fundamental problem, and thereby the fundamental causes, fall back onto our court system. Beginning with first contact, law enforcement officers will arrest someone based upon probable cause that a crime was committed and that the individual in custody committed the act. Keep in mind, however, that when the case is forwarded onto the prosecutor (the initial stage of our court system) any charge attached to the individual is merely a recommendation. The prosecutor has the final say as to whether or not to file and move the case forward to court. If racial prejudice is suspected in the officer’s actions, it’s the prosecutor’s responsibility to take the appropriate action. Should the case move to trial, it’s the court’s charge to address any issues related to targeted enforcement or prosecution. In most cases, at this point corrections is not even involved in the process. Eventually, it is again a failure of our court system to identify and address issues of racial bias and prejudice BEFORE an individual is held accountable for his/her actions. As with overcrowding, imagine the backlash if a judge sentenced a little green man to 6 months in the county jail and the correctional officials said “sorry, we already have enough little green men – we can’t take anymore.” Once more, in the spirit of fairness and equity, and to truly highlight where the problem exists, perhaps we should change the term “disproportion minority confinement” to “disproportionate minority sentencing.”
Conclusion
In the end, modern corrections is not perfect, but it’s also not the problem child of the criminal justice system that many make it out to be. Today, dedicated corrections professionals work tirelessly to address and manage a myriad of complex and ever changing issues. While several of these challenges arise from the very nature of offender management, the larger “hot topic” issues do not.
References:
1. http://webb.senate.gov/issuesandlegislation/criminaljusticeandlawenforcement/ Criminal_Justice_Banner.cfm
2. http://voicesofjustice.com/?author=1
