Rather than relying on law enforcement’s use of weapons, handcuffs, and prisons alone, Kennedy suggests that persuasion can also prove effective in stopping drug crimes. He instructs law enforcement officers to gather evidence against drug offenders and prepare criminal indictments. Before arresting them and locking the drug offenders into a system that perpetuates failure, he urges the officers to call the suspects in for a candid look at the evidence against them. The officers then give the criminal suspects a choice. Either they can enroll in a program with mentors who will help them develop community values and live as productive citizens, or the officers will go forward with the criminal cases against them and put them through the prison system. That liberal approach, to the chagrin of lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key conservatives has proven far more effective in reducing crime.

Prison administrators and legislators ought to consider the valuable lessons Professor Kennedy teaches. The use of intelligence is far more effective than the use of force in fostering safer communities. If prison administrators were to use incentives that would encourage prisoners to work toward developing skills and credentials and resources, the prison lenders would take a huge step toward both lowering recidivism rates and prison operating expenses.

By extinguishing hope for those who serve time in prison, administrators create us-versus-them environments. The more oppressive and controlling the prison regime, the more recalcitrant prisoners become. It is precisely the lack of hope that leads to the proliferation of gangs and violence inside America’s prison system. Such policies contribute to the cycles of failure and unsafe communities, as prisoners revert to crime upon release.

Some prisoners present a danger to law-abiding society and show no interest in living in accordance with the principles of good citizenship. Many more prisoners, however, would welcome opportunities to work toward reconciling with society and earning their freedom. The heavy-handed policies of get-tough politicians, however, keep society locked into a so-called “corrections” policy that is fundamentally flawed. It is the reason that taxpayers must spend $60 billion per year to fund a system that perpetuates failure. Although prisons churn out failure, the system ??? urge to punish.

The post Intelligence Trumps Force, Professor David Kennedy Suggests appeared first on Prison News Blog.

My 22 years of experience as a federal prisoner give me a strong opinion on the reasons that our system of corrections breeds so much failure. The prisons in which I have been held extinguish hope. They do not encourage those who strive to prepare for law abiding lives upon release. The consequence of this flawed policy, from my perspective, is that prisoners who struggle to sustain focus through incarceration abandon adjustment patterns that could help them prepare for law-abiding lives upon release. Instead, they embrace adjustment patterns that lead to continuing cycles of failure.

Professor Petersilia reports some of the findings from her distinguished colleague, Professor James Q. Wilson. For many years I have read of Professor Wilson’s work. He is well known for his 1985 book Thinking About Crime, in which he wrote that prisons ought to isolate and punish. I’ve served my entire sentence in prisons designed not only to isolate and punish, but also to extinguish hope. The high recidivism rates that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported represent the fallout from such myopic objectives.

The problem with prisons is that they condition people to live inside boundaries, though they simultaneously condition people to fail upon release. We need prison reforms that would lower recidivism rates and simultaneously lower prison operating costs. The way to accomplish such goals would require fundamental changes with the ways administrators manage prisons.

Rather than extinguishing hope and erecting barriers that obstruct prisoners from preparing offenders for law-abiding lives upon release, administrators ought to implement incentive programs that encourage the opposite. As Justice Burger once said in his speech Factories with Fences. We need prison reforms that will encourage offenders to earn and learn their way to freedom.

The post Prison Reform Can Lower Recidivism appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Too many American citizens live with delusions that long-term imprisonment makes for safer communities. By isolating and punishing, the thought goes, offenders will refrain from criminal acts in order to avoid the possible sanctions. Some merit exists in the theory that the fears of punishment keeps people in line, thought 22 years of living in prison convinces me that prolonged isolation and punishment renders society less safe and wastes taxpayer resources.

In Professor Joan Petersilia’s work, I read that between the 1920s and 1970, America incarcerated its residents at a rate of 110 per every 100,000 people in the population. Since the 1970s, we’ve increased that rate of imprisonment to more than 700 prisoners for every 100,000 people in our country. America incarcerates more than 2.3 million people, and more than 700,000 prisoners return to society each year.

By only isolating and punishing, society has conditioned those offenders for continuing cycles of failure. That is the reason government statistics show that 67 percent, or two out of every three prisoners, return to confinement within three years of release. This policy of isolation and punishment does not render society safer.

My experience of living in prison convinces me that long-term imprisonment makes society less safe. As people spend decades in confinement, they learn to adjust to confinement in ways that they perceive makes their time pass easier. Without hope for relief, they join gangs, they hustle contraband, they corrupt the institution. As prisoners adjust to confinement negatively, they simultaneously condition themselves for failure upon release.

We need prison reforms that will encourage prisoners to empower themselves. Those reforms should offer opportunities for prisoners to earn freedom through merit. Isolating and punishing only keeps the cycle of failure going. We need a more enlightened approach to corrections. We should start by rewarding success. Perhaps citizens will start the process by supporting my petition for commutation.

The post Squandering Billions on Corrections appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Those in law enforcement say such expenditures are necessary to keep society…that is a problem administrators could change by simply encouraging more prisoners to adjust in positive ways. Prisoners are human beings, and like all people, they respond better to the promise of incentives than to the threat of punishment. If administrators were to implement mechanisms through which prisoners could work toward meaningful lives, more prisoners would feel a sense of self-empowerment. Without that hope, prisoners feel only the weight of their sentences.

Those without a clear understanding of prisons misunderstand the concept of good time. Administrators do not base good time on positive accomplishments. Rather all prisoners who avoid disciplinary infractions receive good time. That means a prisoner who plays dominoes all day earns the same good time as the individual striving to prepare for a law-abiding life. Thus good time fails as an incentive to motivate positive adjustments. It simply rewards an individual for staying out of trouble, which is something he is supposed to do.

I advocate the types of incentives Justice Burger wrote about in his speech Factories with Fences. Prisoners should earn the right to gradual increases in freedom through merit. As they educate themselves, develop vocational skills, build networks of support, demonstrate that they have a commitment to reconciling with society and live by American values, they ought to earn graduating increases in freedom. Such an approach would not diminish the seriousness of crime, but it would instill offenders with a way out from the poverty of their lives. Rather than simply punishing the offenders for breaking the law, society would condition offenders to emerge from prison as productive citizens. Simultaneously, the negative influences of the prison would lose their corrupting power.

Perhaps society should start such a program with nonviolent offenders. Those burdened with life terms would have higher hurdles to cross, and some may never qualify for the higher level of freedom, though I suspect prison reforms ought to include all prisoners in some way.

The post Reduce Recidivism Through Reform appeared first on Prison News Blog.

If a prisoner has a scheduled release date, society has an inherent interest in helping that individual find stability. The prisoner has a responsibility of course. He should work to educate himself, build a network of support, and prepare in every way possible. In light of the Act, administrators ought to encourage him by offering a clear pathway that would show the prisoner what steps he must take to earn maximum halfway house placement. Instead, administrators offer no such guidance. They do not offer a mechanism through which a prisoner can earn maximum placement. Ironically, those who educate themselves and build strong networks of support receive less halfway house, as administrators reason taht such prisoners will require less time to acclimate. Despite my having served more than 21 years, I would not qualify for maximum placement because I have educated myself and built a strong network of support.

I do not know a single prisoner whom administrators have granted 12-months halfway house. But that is only one element of the Act that administrators ignore. The Act also urged administrators to implement programs that would allow prisoners to nurture family ties during imprisonment. Instead, they limit telephone and visiting and correspondence access. Such actions suggest that administrators want to keep prisons humming with high recidivism rates.

The post Prison Administrators Resist Change appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Prisoners who spend years or decades inside this system sense the hopelessness. They recognize the administrative indifference to rehabilitation. An individual who strives to educate himself in prison must overcome daily hurdles, as rules block his access rather than encourage him. Besides the obstacles that are ancillary to confinement, prisoners cope with the emotional strain of being separated from loved ones.

Since many prisoners lack the emotional or psychological strength necessary to commit to sustained efforts to prepare for success upon release, and the corrections system offers little in the way of shaping positive prison adjustments, many prisoners fail to acquire the skills or support networks necessary to overcome the challenges that await release. As recidivism rates show, many prisoners return to confinement. It is no accident that their time in corrections has conditioned the prisoners for failure.

The post Warehousing vs. Rehabilitation as the Goal of Prison appeared first on Prison News Blog.

As a spokesperson for prison reform, I would highlight different aspects of confinement than current media likes to portray. I would emphasize the challenges those who strive to prepare for law-abiding lives upon release must overcome. By erecting obstacles that block prisoners from building strong family and community ties; by limited prisoner access to vocational and education programs; and by failing to rely upon mechanisms that would encourage prisoners to work toward earning freedom, prisons perpetuate continuing cycles of failure. Rather than striving to reduce recidivism, corrections uses policies that keep it going.

To promote prison reform, I will strive to work with the media on creating content that profiles those prisoners who have succeeded. They dwarf the number who adjust to prison by joining gangs and hustling contraband. I’d like to contrast the differences and help audiences understand why so few emerge from prison successfully. My experience in navigating prisons of every security level may help me make a persuasive case. Certainly, I also would advocate for reforms to help those who have completed their terms contribute to society in positive ways.

The post Media and the Subject of Prison Reform appeared first on Prison News Blog.

The Pew Report showed the troubling findings of prison expenditures. To meet a cost of nearly $60 billion each year for state and federal prisons, useful programs like education, health care, and public assistance must receive budget cuts. Such myopic policies do not contribute to a more enlightened society. They need reform.

Rather than striving to lock prisoners in cages at a high cost to taxpayers, prison reforms ought to make more effective use of prison resources. As Justice Kennedy said, we incarcerate too many people in America. Even the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued a report calling for more effective use of alternative sanctions. Some state prison systems are under siege with prison operating costs. We need reforms at all levels.

I am convinced that society should reserve prisons for offenders who prey upon society. There comes a point of diminishing returns when we lock all offenders in cages and measure justice by the number of calendar pages that turn.

Recidivism rates suggest that the longer society incarcerates an offender, the less likely that individual is to function upon release as a law-abiding citizen.

We need the types of prison reform that Justice Warren Burger suggested more than two decades ago in his speech Factories with Fences. All prisoners should have opportunities to work toward earning freedom through merit. Such a fundamental change would not have the purpose of helping criminals, per se. Rather, the change would help society. Such prison reforms would:

*lower recidivism

*lower operating costs

*improve safety in society

*lower prison overcrowding

The post The Ridiculous Manner of Prison Managment appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Hugo Sanchez is a criminal justice student who asked my thoughts on who should be in charge of deciding which prisoners receive the benefit of early release. As a long-term prisoner, I am a believer in transparency. I think law-abiding citizens who don’t have any role in operating the prison system, but who have an inherent interest in the people who live in their communities, ought to have a vote in determining which justice has been served. Nordic countries, I have read, make use of an ombudsman panel. The ordinary citizens from neighboring communities comprise those panels. Those who sit on the Nordic Ombudsman panels play a role in helping offenders craft adjustment plans at the start of the offender’s term. The offender is responsible for keeping those on the panel apprised of the progress he makes toward reconciling with society. In time, after the offender meets specific benchmarks that include more than the passage of time, those who sit on the community ombudsman panel have the authority to sponsor the offender’s release.

We do not make use of our citizens in the United States with regard to our prison system. Nor is our system of corrections transparent. Prison administrators take precautionary measures to limit the amount of information that leaks out about prison operations.

I would like to see prison reforms that bring much more transparency to the system of corrections. The public ought to exercise its first amendment rights to demand news as to why an agency that swallows so many billions in taxpayer funds struggles with such high recidivism rates. If the public had access to the manner in which administrative policies extinguish hope, citizens would understand why recidivism is such a problem. Appropriate prison reforms would lower overcrowding, lower recidivism, and lower prison operating budgets.

The post Ombudsman Panels and Prison Reform appeared first on Prison News Blog.

The U.S. Congress made specific findings in The Second Chance Act. One of those findings was that prison administrators fail to make effective use of the family structure to prepare offenders for re-entry. The obstacles that prison culture erects to block family and community ties play a significant role in influencing high recidivism rates.

Jon-Daniel, a bright criminal justice student, asked how society could implement reforms that would strengthen family ties. It would be simple. Administrators could simply provide prisoners with more access to speak with family members over the telephone. The 300-minutes per month BOP phone policy limits prisoners to speaking on the phone for an average of less than 10 minutes per day.

As Jon-Daniel observed in his comment, prison makes it difficult to nurture marital bonds. I am a long-term prisoner, and as such I must invest myself totally in my relationship with Carole. She serves this prison term along with me, and struggles every day as a consequence of the oppressive prison rules that block family ties.

To overcome the challenges of confinement, I must make every effort possible to nurture and sustain my marriage to Carole. That means I must reserve all of my telephone and visiting privileges for her. As a consequence of forcing me to prioritize how I will use my minimal access to family ties, prison policies cause me to sacrifice my relationships with extended family members. This absurdity contributes to high recidivism rates and higher prison operating costs. Prisoners who have strong family ties are more likely to adjust in positive ways. Those who lack strong family ties are more susceptible to the negative influences of the prison. They join gangs and engage in disruption.

 Administrators could implement prison reforms that would offer prisoners access to more privileges and mechanisms that would help them strengthen family ties. They could offer privileges as incentives, making the privileges conditional upon positive adjustment patterns. For example, by educating himself, working, and avoiding disciplinary infractions, a prisoner ought to earn more access to family. Administrators could dispense telephone access, visiting privileges, even e-mail to prisoners who demonstrate a commitment to redemption. Those changes would bring many advantages, including:

*lower recidivism rates

*lower incidences of gang corruption

*lower prison operating costs

*safer communities

*stronger family ties

Incentives would improve America’s prison system.

The post Utilize the Family Structure to Prepare Offenders for Re-entry appeared first on Prison News Blog.