Tough on Crime

Among the many logically questionable, popular trends that have infested the political debate of this country, our newfound tenacity with respect to crime and its consequences may well become one of our most dubious legacies.

Beyond the unarguably increased costs of a system which incarcerates “three strikes” offenders for life; beyond the cries of racism directed at prisons which house disproportionate numbers of minorities; beyond many well-founded and pertinent debates about the justification of such a harsh system, lies the fundamental question:  does it work?

The aim of America’s tough stance is to eliminate the perceived pampering of hardened criminals in our penal institutions, which were founded on the principle that people can be rehabilitated.  At the heart of the argument for reform prisons is the belief, printed on a plaque in the lobby of McKean, a federal prison in Pennsylvania noted for its success in rehabilitating its inmates, that “inmates are sent to prison AS punishment and not FOR punishment.”  Alas, this idea is being buried, but not by the rational logic that one might expect on an issue of such importance.  It is being buried by simple anger.

I do not wish to diverge into the myriad arguments on either side of this position; however, I will state that there are studies that indicate a correspondence between education and recidivism rates.  A system that appears not to work does not necessarily indicate a system that is ill-founded.  But rather than focus on the scientific, I would like to focus on a few commonsense arguments that highlight what I consider to be our knee-jerk reaction to our growing crime problem, inspired more by exasperation than by concrete evidence.

In some respects, a reform system approaches criminals like a parent approaches children.  While a child’s behavior must be formed, a criminal’s must be RE-formed.  But as every parent knows, teaching behavior involves more than simply stating what is right and what is wrong, rewarding right and punishing wrong.  The logic at work with America’s get-tough stance seems to be that if the first hit did not work, hit harder.  If the first confinement was not enough, keep them longer.  But this denies the source of the problem, which leads directly to my second point.

Many of our communities have seen a recent surge in gang-related activities, and specifically, graffiti.  The response of some area stores was to refuse to sell spray paint.  But again, we have failed to address the real issue, which is not how crime happens, but why it happens.  Our response to crime has been to attempt to remove the instruments of its commission (paint, drugs, guns, people), but blatantly ignore the motivations that lead to crime.

I have watched with great disappointment the growing polarity of our arguments about prisons.  Prisons must be either “resorts” or “boot camps,” where prisoners are either “coddled” or “cudgeled.”  This sort of needless posturing prevents us from discussing the issues and attacking the problems.