FREE ESSAY ON A CRITIQUE OF PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

A CRITIQUE OF PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

People are arrested every day in the United States. They are put on probation or sent to
jail, and sometimes they are let out on parole; there are millions of people affected. In
1995 alone there were over five million people under some form of correctional
supervision, and the number is steadily increasing. The incarceration rate is
skyrocketing: the number of prison inmates per 100,000 people has risen from 139 in 1980
to 411 in 1995. This is an immense financial burden on the country. Federal expenditure
for correctional institutions alone increased 248% from 1982 to 1992. Obviously something
has to be changed in the justice system. If the crime rate is rising this much, the
correctional justice system isn't functioning properly, and needs to be reformed. Many
people have offered theories as to what should be done with the prison system, the
extremes being retributivism and the therapeutic model, but what they all seem to have
overlooked is that there is no single system that works for everyone. Blanket
generalizations as to the nature of the criminal mind cannot be made. Every criminal is
different, with different motivations and different psychological characteristics so that
different things are required to make them repent or deter them from further criminal
activity, and I believe that the solutions offered are not enough to lower the crime rate
and prison population. Something needs to be done on a more fundamental level so that
fewer people turn to crime in the first place, thereby providing the prison system with
the freedom to improve the attention it gives to the people that do become criminals; my
solution is a combination of economic reform and educational opportunity that would give
people less reason to commit crimes.
The extreme right reform proposition, retributivism, is flawed mainly because it seems to
assume that showing people that what they've done is wrong will always accomplish
something, and that every prisoner can be shown that his crime was a moral wrong. This is
not the case for many prisoners. There are people who steal and sell drugs simply because
they have no other means of survival. There are people whose lives in the outside world
are so terribly difficult that for them, prison life is a cushier existence than their
ordinary day-to-day existence, and many of these people intentionally commit crimes so
they will be arrested and thrown in jail, simply so that they can get a decent meal and a
bed. For these people, even if they feel that their criminal existence is indeed a moral
wrong, prison does nothing to make them repent or change their way of life. They have no
choice but to steal or to sell drugs, because they have to make a living somehow, and if
this is the only way they can do it then prison time will not change the way they see
things. Also, there are criminals who either do not see or do not believe that what they
are doing is a moral wrong, and no amount of punishment can convince them that they
shouldn't have done what they did. If they reject the categorical imperative, no
punishment can change their minds; prison time is then a waste for them as well. They
committed their crimes without fear of punishment, and they will continue to commit
crimes after they are released, and they don't feel any remorse. What then is the point
in putting these people in jail? They are simply taking up space. Something else must be
done to keep these types of people from committing criminal acts.
The extreme left proposition, or therapeutic model, is also flawed. Believing that
criminal behavior is a psychological disorder that can be treated through therapy may be
true in some cases, but certainly it cannot be proven to hold true for all. The same
group of people I mentioned before is an exception to the therapeutic rule: people whose
lives depend on drug sales and theft will not be changed by psychological treatment. They
simply do what they have to do, and after they are released from therapy, they will go
back to stealing, because they have no other way to earn a living. Then there are people
who cannot be cured by any amount of psychological therapy. They will sit through the
counseling sessions, perhaps play along with the therapist's games, but once released,
they will resume their criminal habits. And even among those who can be positively
affected by psychological treatments, there are so many different psychological disorders
and personal idiosyncrasies that no single treatment plan can cure all of them. Another
argument against the therapeutic model of criminal justice is this: people pay thousands
of dollars a year to see psychiatrists, completely of their own accord. If people are
willing to pay for this, why should they avoid committing a crime, if the only punishment
they are likely to receive is psychological treatment? The therapeutic model is not only
a poor deterrent, it has the potential to increase the crime rate. Psychiatric treatment
is expensive. If one could obtain counseling for free simply by getting oneself thrown in
jail, I think that many people would do so without hesitation. People who would otherwise
commit no crimes could very well choose to do something they wouldn't otherwise think of.
Obviously the therapeutic model is no solution. 
Other people propose a solution combining the retributive and therapeutic models of
justice, which is more of a utilitarian view. They would have criminals sent to jail for
their crimes, and given psychological counseling while incarcerated. This is a nice idea
in theory, and the most reasonable proposition in my opinion, but the simple fact is that
prisons are too overcrowded to give each prisoner the treatment he deserves. There are
too many prisoners and not enough money. As a blanket solution to the problem of criminal
justice reform, I agree that the utilitarian view of prisons is the most desirable
policy, and that our justice system as it is now leaves a lot to be desired, but I
believe that the greatest concern is not how to change criminals once they've already
been arrested, but how to prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place. 
My proposition is for society, as well as the government, to turn its attention away from
prison reform and focus instead on the issues that lead people to adopt a criminal
lifestyle. There are distinct environmental factors that are correlated with criminal
behavior. In 1991 a third of all inmates in state prisons had been unemployed prior to
their arrest, and of those who had held jobs, one fourth had only part-time jobs. In
local jails 36% had been unemployed, 20% looking unsuccessfully for a job and 16% not
even trying. Many of these inmates are uneducated as well: only 59% of state prison
inmates had a high school diploma or its equivalent, and in local jails, this percentage
dropped to a mere 54% of inmates. Two thirds of prisoners rank in the bottom two of five
levels used to score the National Adult Literacy Test, compared to less than half of
non-incarcerated adults; inmates are, more often than average non-incarcerated adults,
less educated than their parents, and the parents of inmates are generally less educated
than the parents of non-incarcerated adults in the same age range. These statistics
cannot be chalked up to coincidence alone. Obviously there's a connection between
education and employment opportunities and criminality. Uneducated people, and those who
cannot find a job for whatever reason, seem to be far more likely to turn to a criminal
lifestyle than those with an education and a job. What I think is then the solution to
the problem of skyrocketing crime rates and prison populations is increased attention to
education and economic equality.
The most important factor in my solution is education. The first step that needs to be
taken is to redistribute state and national tax dollars so that schools are better
funded, providing children with the best teachers and educational equipment available so
that they are motivated to complete their public education and can go on to be
competitive in the job market after graduation from high school or college. Educated
people have no real reason to turn to crime for a living, as they have the skills
necessary to obtain and hold a decent job. Another part of education is to instill a
moral sense in children, and while I don't know as this can reasonably be part of a
public school education, a child who is brought up with moral values will most likely
refrain from serious crime on the basis of conscience alone. 
Although education should provide people with the skills necessary to obtain a
higher-paying job, there will still have to be people holding the lower positions in
society: the sanitation workers, the truck drivers, etcetera. These people are necessary
for our society to run smoothly. Not everyone can be a doctor, no matter what their level
of education. Even those people may occasionally have to steal something they need,
simply because their insignificant wages won't stretch far enough to feed and care for
their families. And these people are far more likely to be arrested for theft than rich
doctors and lawyers. Another factor is that people below the poverty level are probably
more likely to feel no remorse after stealing something, because they have suffered so
many injustices in their lifetimes. Most people below the poverty level are born into the
situation, and are therefore disadvantaged as far as rising above it goes because the
opportunities are simply not available. They will steal the things they need and feel no
sense of remorse for having cheated the upper class store owners out of a few dollars.
However, there is no reason for the economically disadvantaged people, and those in
menial jobs, to have to worry about whether they have enough money for the things they
want and need. If the economic system were partially leveled through governmental tax and
wage regulation, not so that everyone got the same wages but so that the difference
between the economic elite and the poor was not quite as drastic, no one would be forced
to steal for a living, thereby eliminating a lot of criminal activity. If relative
economic equality were combined with better education for children (as well as adult
literacy programs), I believe that the prison population would be drastically reduced
over time, and once the prisons no longer had to deal with the problem of overcrowding,
they could turn their attention to those who will continue to commit crimes regardless of
measures taken to prevent their ever becoming criminals. There will be the possibility of
individualized attention, and those who need to be punished can be punished while those
in need of psychiatric treatment can be treated accordingly. The prison system will have
a lot more freedom to improve the way it treats those who do find their way through its
gates, and then the crime rate can be reduced still further. 
Of course this system I have proposed would take a long time to take effect on the prison
populations, but I think it makes more sense than trying to attack the prison itself. No
one solution will work for every prisoner; if we assume that it will, crime rates will
still continue to climb exponentially as they have in recent years, and prisons will
continue to overcrowd and to drain millions of our tax dollars that could be better spent
on education and other things. The trend can only be reversed by attacking the root of
the problem. As the old saying goes, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, and this
rings true for inmates as well as dogs. Train them while they're puppies, so to speak. A
well brought up child will be no more inclined to commit a crime than a well-trained dog
will be to urinate on the rug. And if the crime rate is so drastically reduced, society
as a whole will be greatly improved.