Luke
09-10-2002, 01:06 AM
Michael G. Santos
When I was 21 I joined a "friend" in a scheme to distribute cocaine throughout the Seattle area. I am now in my tenth year of a forty-five-year non-paroleable sentence for that very serious misstep. No longer that reckless youth, I've grown into a thinking adult and I'm ready to return home to Seattle.
Because of my family's financial sacrifices, I was able to begin and complete the requirements for an undergraduate degree at Mercer University, and a masters degree at Hofstra University since I've been in prison. Recently I've begun studying in a program at the University of Connecticut that will lead to a Ph.D. in Political Science. In the near decade that I've spent in prison I have never received a disciplinary infraction and I am considered a model inmate by officials of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Yet, regardless of my desire to progress and my exemplary conduct, and the fact that both have become established character traits, current policies mandate that I spend some twenty more years within this multibillion-dollar machine known as America's correctional system. I have been corrected. Hundreds -- if not thousands -- of others are similarly situated. Does this make sense?
The prisoner population in federal prisons alone surpassed 100,000 this year; the figure was less than 25,000 in 1980, before the country launched its war on people involved with drugs. Now, more than 60,000 federal prisoners are serving time for violations of the drug laws, and like me, a majority of these offenders have no record of violence.
Costs -- monetary and human -- are what make these numbers so appalling. They run between $15,000 and $35,000 per year, depending upon where the prisoner is held. That's a lot of money, especially when it's being spent to little or no effect. Why? Because "tuition" at the "University of Concrete and Steel" comes considerably higher than at most other universities. Something's awry in the course that our politicians have set for this country.
Prison space is a finite resource. Or, if not finite, then almost infinitely expensive to enlarge. We just don't have enough cells to hold all who have been convicted of breaking laws. And, because mandated sentences grow longer each time Congress convenes -- and there is no parole board or release valve in place -- it's time taxpayers demand at least two things of their correctional system.
First, prison space should be used only for offenders who pose a threat to the public safety -- primarily volatile offenders with a documented history of violence -- and perhaps those who show a propensity for violence. Second, legislators should initiate an incentive arrangement whereby administrators can offer non-violent offenders opportunities to earn their way out of prison, and I don't mean by telling on someone else. Here's where "down-sizing" makes grand economic sense and even better human sense. How to begin?
What society wants from the correctional system is a means to keep offenders off the streets. But a means, as well, to afford offenders opportunities to develop the skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to function productively upon release. After all, few offenders are put away for life: more than nine in ten leave prison eventually. Society would be immeasurably better off if the people released brought with them the capacity to live satisfactorily in their communities.
Society, of course, should hold offenders accountable, just as "mainstream" America is held accountable. But how?
Legislators clearly should identify the objective of the correctional system. To punish, yes. But, to punish and also, ultimately, to reorient those being punished. Incarceration is the punishment. The reorientation must be initiated and accomplished by the individual prisoner, for the most part, but must be encouraged, sustained, and rewarded by the correctional system. There should be in place a route that if traveled would open the gates at some future time. How much would reorientation cost? Considerably less in dollars than human warehousing. And much, much less in human despair and hopelessness.
Government statistics tell us that prisoners who earn their freedom are less likely to return to prison than those who dully wait out their sentences. If the former are acquiring skills that prepare them for working lives and for accommodating to society's expectations, it follows that they will be less inclined after release to revert to behavior that would send them back. And fewer ex-cons equates with more available cells for the violent offenders who refuse to live within the limits imposed by the law.
In fact, if properly implemented, it could be arranged that the desired programs wouldn't cost taxpayers anything. "Properly implemented" means that prisoners would have the chance to work at jobs, enabling them to contribute to the costs of their incarceration. Such jobs also would enable them to pay for the educational programs they choose to complete while confined. Examples of some manual jobs include road cleaning and forest maintenance. With an appropriately motivated and trained prison population, however, other jobs would become available, like teaching, desktop publishing, database management, computer programming, architectural drawing, aspects of engineering essentially, as diverse as capacities and capabilities. Earning potential should be tied to the amount of effort and skill required, just as it is outside prison walls.
Society should recognize prisoners who make significant progress by advancing their release dates; those who simply sit by idly should serve their full terms. The programs would allow administrators opportunities to assess which prisoners are serious about creating productive lifestyles for themselves. Just as important, they would offer hope to prisoners -- hope that they can achieve at least some control over their destinies. " A light at the end of the tunnel" is a universal longing. In sum, the prison society should mirror, insofar as possible, the society prisoners will join upon release.
As laws stand today, I must stay in prison for about two-thirds of my sentence, or thirty years. The bill? At least $600,000 -- more if inflation is factored in. Perhaps close to a million dollars spent on a first-time inmate with no history of violence! This is hardly consistent with the highest and best use of prison resources: to confine violent, predatory offenders.
I mentioned above that I've been earning academic credentials during my near decade of confinement. I've been holding onto hope that my persistence in the pursuit of knowledge and self-improvement would further the likelihood of my earning freedom. With a graduate degree, and as a member of the work force, I could indirectly repay the cost of my incarceration. One more "freeloader" off the shoulders of the taxpayer. I motivate prisoners around me to use their time to prepare for tomorrow. What is most important, though, is that I am as prepared as I ever will be to leave this community of the confined and become a full citizen. What more must I do to earn freedom?
When I was 21 I joined a "friend" in a scheme to distribute cocaine throughout the Seattle area. I am now in my tenth year of a forty-five-year non-paroleable sentence for that very serious misstep. No longer that reckless youth, I've grown into a thinking adult and I'm ready to return home to Seattle.
Because of my family's financial sacrifices, I was able to begin and complete the requirements for an undergraduate degree at Mercer University, and a masters degree at Hofstra University since I've been in prison. Recently I've begun studying in a program at the University of Connecticut that will lead to a Ph.D. in Political Science. In the near decade that I've spent in prison I have never received a disciplinary infraction and I am considered a model inmate by officials of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Yet, regardless of my desire to progress and my exemplary conduct, and the fact that both have become established character traits, current policies mandate that I spend some twenty more years within this multibillion-dollar machine known as America's correctional system. I have been corrected. Hundreds -- if not thousands -- of others are similarly situated. Does this make sense?
The prisoner population in federal prisons alone surpassed 100,000 this year; the figure was less than 25,000 in 1980, before the country launched its war on people involved with drugs. Now, more than 60,000 federal prisoners are serving time for violations of the drug laws, and like me, a majority of these offenders have no record of violence.
Costs -- monetary and human -- are what make these numbers so appalling. They run between $15,000 and $35,000 per year, depending upon where the prisoner is held. That's a lot of money, especially when it's being spent to little or no effect. Why? Because "tuition" at the "University of Concrete and Steel" comes considerably higher than at most other universities. Something's awry in the course that our politicians have set for this country.
Prison space is a finite resource. Or, if not finite, then almost infinitely expensive to enlarge. We just don't have enough cells to hold all who have been convicted of breaking laws. And, because mandated sentences grow longer each time Congress convenes -- and there is no parole board or release valve in place -- it's time taxpayers demand at least two things of their correctional system.
First, prison space should be used only for offenders who pose a threat to the public safety -- primarily volatile offenders with a documented history of violence -- and perhaps those who show a propensity for violence. Second, legislators should initiate an incentive arrangement whereby administrators can offer non-violent offenders opportunities to earn their way out of prison, and I don't mean by telling on someone else. Here's where "down-sizing" makes grand economic sense and even better human sense. How to begin?
What society wants from the correctional system is a means to keep offenders off the streets. But a means, as well, to afford offenders opportunities to develop the skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to function productively upon release. After all, few offenders are put away for life: more than nine in ten leave prison eventually. Society would be immeasurably better off if the people released brought with them the capacity to live satisfactorily in their communities.
Society, of course, should hold offenders accountable, just as "mainstream" America is held accountable. But how?
Legislators clearly should identify the objective of the correctional system. To punish, yes. But, to punish and also, ultimately, to reorient those being punished. Incarceration is the punishment. The reorientation must be initiated and accomplished by the individual prisoner, for the most part, but must be encouraged, sustained, and rewarded by the correctional system. There should be in place a route that if traveled would open the gates at some future time. How much would reorientation cost? Considerably less in dollars than human warehousing. And much, much less in human despair and hopelessness.
Government statistics tell us that prisoners who earn their freedom are less likely to return to prison than those who dully wait out their sentences. If the former are acquiring skills that prepare them for working lives and for accommodating to society's expectations, it follows that they will be less inclined after release to revert to behavior that would send them back. And fewer ex-cons equates with more available cells for the violent offenders who refuse to live within the limits imposed by the law.
In fact, if properly implemented, it could be arranged that the desired programs wouldn't cost taxpayers anything. "Properly implemented" means that prisoners would have the chance to work at jobs, enabling them to contribute to the costs of their incarceration. Such jobs also would enable them to pay for the educational programs they choose to complete while confined. Examples of some manual jobs include road cleaning and forest maintenance. With an appropriately motivated and trained prison population, however, other jobs would become available, like teaching, desktop publishing, database management, computer programming, architectural drawing, aspects of engineering essentially, as diverse as capacities and capabilities. Earning potential should be tied to the amount of effort and skill required, just as it is outside prison walls.
Society should recognize prisoners who make significant progress by advancing their release dates; those who simply sit by idly should serve their full terms. The programs would allow administrators opportunities to assess which prisoners are serious about creating productive lifestyles for themselves. Just as important, they would offer hope to prisoners -- hope that they can achieve at least some control over their destinies. " A light at the end of the tunnel" is a universal longing. In sum, the prison society should mirror, insofar as possible, the society prisoners will join upon release.
As laws stand today, I must stay in prison for about two-thirds of my sentence, or thirty years. The bill? At least $600,000 -- more if inflation is factored in. Perhaps close to a million dollars spent on a first-time inmate with no history of violence! This is hardly consistent with the highest and best use of prison resources: to confine violent, predatory offenders.
I mentioned above that I've been earning academic credentials during my near decade of confinement. I've been holding onto hope that my persistence in the pursuit of knowledge and self-improvement would further the likelihood of my earning freedom. With a graduate degree, and as a member of the work force, I could indirectly repay the cost of my incarceration. One more "freeloader" off the shoulders of the taxpayer. I motivate prisoners around me to use their time to prepare for tomorrow. What is most important, though, is that I am as prepared as I ever will be to leave this community of the confined and become a full citizen. What more must I do to earn freedom?