Monday, June 16, 2008
Article #3 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right
"Not Without Dignity"
by Jacob Galfano
In a nation with a history of commercializing its justice system, it should surprise nobody that one of America’s newer social norms is privatized inmate labor. Over the past few decades, more industries in the private sector are benefiting from inmate labor programs.
In November 2007, voters in Washington State continued the trend, overwhelmingly approving a constitutional amendment that allows its inmate labor programs to be contracted to private companies that “operate in a correctional facility.”
The vote – shunned by local mainstream media – reflects the intersection of mob mentality and state complicity, where free enterprise continues to rule. The initiative’s supporters and opponents appear to fall on either side of an argument focused on the economy, and together conclude that “offenders should work to reduce their burden on taxpayers by paying room and board, crime victim’s compensation, court costs and… child support,” but that “should not be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens competing for jobs or local businesses competing in the marketplace.”
Although narrow, this dichotomy reveals the broader challenge of policy change, in which innumerable stakeholders are affected – which includes prisoners themselves. Statistics show that some prison labor programs reduce recidivism (the rate at which prisoners return to prison after their release), and prisoners prefer to work than to not.
Frank Hinojosa spent 10 years in the federal prison system, and credits the opportunity to train as an electrician for his rehabilitation: “They asked me to clean tables, and I refused. I knew I did not ever want to go back there, so I promised myself to learn a trade. I started studying, and saw the potential in getting certified. It was an accomplishment; now I have a career.”
University of Washington Professor of Law Steve Calandrillo agrees: “I think it’s important that sanctions attempt to deter socially undesirable actions and rehabilitate offenders to the extent possible. We need to ensure that we provide opportunities like job training in order to allow for their reintegration into society. Otherwise we risk further alienating individuals and increasing the chance of recidivism.”
But is there a difference between consent to predetermined choices and empowerment? How many stories like Frank’s really exist?
A growing restorative justice movement suggests that treating human beings as human capital is dangerously disenfranchising, especially when most of those involved in inmate labor programs have no hope for rehabilitation. Paul Wright of Prison Legal News elaborates: “In our reporting, we find it a lie that labor programs are concerned with rehabilitation. The reality is that all of the work programs are in medium to maximum security prisons, where many of the inmates participating in them are already serving life terms.”
“But restorative justice as a movement has little traction if the defendant is convicted for a drug or other public-order offense for which the ‘victim’ is the state. What is there to restore?”
Perhaps redefining what it means to be a victim is necessary for the movement to overcome the daunting challenge of finding its niche within a criminal justice system reinforced by centuries of retributive law and litigation. But it works collaboratively, and uses non-conventional tools like theatre, dancing, literature, and dialog to counter the ubiquitous prison policy of suppressing voice and creativity.
In Seattle, Pat Graney’s Keeping the Faith project helps incarcerated women and girls reclaim their identities. “This is one of the first major accomplishments in my life. This program takes a bunch of convicts and allows us to be productive, socially accepted figures of pride,” said one participant on the program’s website.
There are statistics here, as well. New York’s Juvenile Justice Initiative has resulted in fewer than 35% of its youths being rearrested or violating their probation. Montgomery, Alabama’s community-based centers for youth offenders have led to recidivism rates under 10% and zero suicides – both enormous reductions.
However, in the United States, one in one-hundred people are in prison – an unprecedented ratio.
As the restorative justice movement grows, it will continue to encounter skepticism and political barriers. But it is resilient, and has the support of scores of human rights activists, legislators, elected officials, and scholars.
Social scientist Dr. Philip Zimbardo writes, “Prisons are places that demean humanity, destroy the nobility of human nature, and bring out the worst in social relations among people.” He might agree that by providing more alternatives to those incarcerated and empowering them to choose, Washington State can send the message that no human being is without dignity.
For the complete interview with Frank Hinojosa, visit our website: http://students.washington.edu/j4hr
by Jacob Galfano
In a nation with a history of commercializing its justice system, it should surprise nobody that one of America’s newer social norms is privatized inmate labor. Over the past few decades, more industries in the private sector are benefiting from inmate labor programs.
In November 2007, voters in Washington State continued the trend, overwhelmingly approving a constitutional amendment that allows its inmate labor programs to be contracted to private companies that “operate in a correctional facility.”
The vote – shunned by local mainstream media – reflects the intersection of mob mentality and state complicity, where free enterprise continues to rule. The initiative’s supporters and opponents appear to fall on either side of an argument focused on the economy, and together conclude that “offenders should work to reduce their burden on taxpayers by paying room and board, crime victim’s compensation, court costs and… child support,” but that “should not be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens competing for jobs or local businesses competing in the marketplace.”
Although narrow, this dichotomy reveals the broader challenge of policy change, in which innumerable stakeholders are affected – which includes prisoners themselves. Statistics show that some prison labor programs reduce recidivism (the rate at which prisoners return to prison after their release), and prisoners prefer to work than to not.
Frank Hinojosa spent 10 years in the federal prison system, and credits the opportunity to train as an electrician for his rehabilitation: “They asked me to clean tables, and I refused. I knew I did not ever want to go back there, so I promised myself to learn a trade. I started studying, and saw the potential in getting certified. It was an accomplishment; now I have a career.”
University of Washington Professor of Law Steve Calandrillo agrees: “I think it’s important that sanctions attempt to deter socially undesirable actions and rehabilitate offenders to the extent possible. We need to ensure that we provide opportunities like job training in order to allow for their reintegration into society. Otherwise we risk further alienating individuals and increasing the chance of recidivism.”
But is there a difference between consent to predetermined choices and empowerment? How many stories like Frank’s really exist?
A growing restorative justice movement suggests that treating human beings as human capital is dangerously disenfranchising, especially when most of those involved in inmate labor programs have no hope for rehabilitation. Paul Wright of Prison Legal News elaborates: “In our reporting, we find it a lie that labor programs are concerned with rehabilitation. The reality is that all of the work programs are in medium to maximum security prisons, where many of the inmates participating in them are already serving life terms.”
“But restorative justice as a movement has little traction if the defendant is convicted for a drug or other public-order offense for which the ‘victim’ is the state. What is there to restore?”
Perhaps redefining what it means to be a victim is necessary for the movement to overcome the daunting challenge of finding its niche within a criminal justice system reinforced by centuries of retributive law and litigation. But it works collaboratively, and uses non-conventional tools like theatre, dancing, literature, and dialog to counter the ubiquitous prison policy of suppressing voice and creativity.
In Seattle, Pat Graney’s Keeping the Faith project helps incarcerated women and girls reclaim their identities. “This is one of the first major accomplishments in my life. This program takes a bunch of convicts and allows us to be productive, socially accepted figures of pride,” said one participant on the program’s website.
There are statistics here, as well. New York’s Juvenile Justice Initiative has resulted in fewer than 35% of its youths being rearrested or violating their probation. Montgomery, Alabama’s community-based centers for youth offenders have led to recidivism rates under 10% and zero suicides – both enormous reductions.
However, in the United States, one in one-hundred people are in prison – an unprecedented ratio.
As the restorative justice movement grows, it will continue to encounter skepticism and political barriers. But it is resilient, and has the support of scores of human rights activists, legislators, elected officials, and scholars.
Social scientist Dr. Philip Zimbardo writes, “Prisons are places that demean humanity, destroy the nobility of human nature, and bring out the worst in social relations among people.” He might agree that by providing more alternatives to those incarcerated and empowering them to choose, Washington State can send the message that no human being is without dignity.
For the complete interview with Frank Hinojosa, visit our website: http://students.washington.edu/j4hr
Posted by
UWJHR
at
3:49 PM
|
0
comments
Labels: dignity, human rights, inmate labor program, jacob galfano, newsletter, university of washington, uwjhr
Labels: dignity, human rights, inmate labor program, jacob galfano, newsletter, university of washington, uwjhr
